Re: [Sqlgrey-users] Backup MX servers

[Lionel B. <lio...@bo...>]

Ray Booysen wrote the following on 16.06.2005 10:42 :

> Lionel Bouton wrote:
>
>> The fact is: you probably don't need a secondary MX (in fact no sane
>> configuration should).  
>>
>
> Hey
>
> Why do you and Michael think that backup MX servers aren't neccesary?


As I said, until the server doing the actual delivery to the mailboxes
is up, you only shift the task of retrying a failed delivery from the
original MTA to your backup MX servers. The only benefit is when you
control the backup MX servers and can make them flush their queues as
soon as the "delivery" server is back online : the messages won't get
delayed as much as if the original MTAs would have retried themselves.

If you don't have any control over the backup MX servers, then you don't
gain anything from them, in fact as you witness yourself you only weaken
your anti-spam solutions. The name "backup" MX server is in fact
misleading, you don't backup anything with it as the so-called "backup"
MX is useless without the "delivery" server : you can't use it as your
primary server (delivering mails to users, allowing them to fetch
through POP3(s) or IMAP) if the original goes down.

Backup MX providers are mostly misguided ("everyone provide a backup MX
service, we must do it too") or knowingly trying to suck money from you
without any real service provided.

Lionel.