quarantine release might lose mail?

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 16:29:22 GMT 2009

2009/12/18 Frank Cusack <fcusack at fcusack.com>:
> On December 18, 2009 10:22:55 AM +0100 Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Steve is the voice of reason here Frank, so listen well to his advice.
>> Given your current situation, I'd seriously think of ditching the
>> secondare entirely... As is, it doesn't add any security worth
>> mentioning, only trouble. For real mail sent through real MTAs, a
>> service outage will be handled (more or less well) via the RFCs
>> anyway, so ... the use of a secondary is only to try simulate
>> something that mail was never designed for, in your case at least, so
>> ... not that great:/
> I am now tending to agree.  In fact, I'm not sure why I have *ever*
> used a secondary MX.  It's not like you can tolerate more than a day
> of downtime (even a day would be long) and even if so, not hard to
> put up a second box on the same IP.
> I guess it harkens back to the days of lots of little partitions
> on the hard drive.

One could of course have several equal weight MXes for
performance/load balancing, but that's another issue:-).

>> I haven't looked at it lately, but there used to be a fairly
>> opinionated (but good) wiki page on best practices ... Have a quick
>> peek at http://wiki.mailscanner.info/doku.php?id=best_practices ...
>> it's actually worth the read;-)
> thanks, i hadn't seen that page.  i'll check it out.

-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

More information about the MailScanner mailing list