"Greg A. Woods" <woods@???> probably said:
> Those are good reasons for having parallel MXers. Only when the
> "backup" server cannot handle 1/2 the load normally should it be given a
> lower-priority MX.
Actually usually in that situation I'd give the second box a lower MX
if it could handle the load or otherwise. I dont want mail taking
extra hops when it doesn't need to but it's useful when it does need
to.
> Of course in this case all MXers are still under direct and hopefully
> immediate control of the same administrators so can enforce the same
> access controls and thus lots of the reasons for avoiding MXers do not
> apply in this case.
The domains I feel are important (all of mine :) I directly control
all the MXes. I also provide backup MX for a few other people who
trust the way I run a mailserver - when I see queues building up for
their domain I can prod them through non-email means, too ;)
If you don't trust a secondary MX, don't use it, but if you trust them
(my level of trust happens to be "I run it") I don't have a problem.
Backup MXes are very useful, they're just an overused tool in many
situations where they may not be the most appropriate tool.
P.
--
pir pir@??? pir@???
