Paul Robinson <paul@???> probably said:
> Increasingly, more and more large ISPs (e.g. Pipex) are pointing MXs
> directly to intermittently connected hosts. I have at least 4 corporate
> customers who are moving over to us from these ISPs and when mail is being
> sent out to them, it can take up to *3*days* for the mail to be delivered
> (if it ever gets delivered). If their ISDN router isn't up when exim is
> doing a -q, the mail is not delivered. Have any of you guys noticed this,
> and is this an error on my part, or am I right in thinking that putting a
> priority 1 MX to an intermittently connected host is just stupid?
Speaking as an ex-pipex sysadmin, thats been standard practice for
years. What there should also be is a lower priority MX pointing to a
fallback host at pipex to collect the mail that cannot get to the
highest priority MX and when the intermittantly connected machine
comes up it triggers delivery of queued mail from it ...
If you're seeing intermittantly configured hosts with no fallback MX
then yes, this is often a misconfiguration but having the highest MX
point to an intermittantly connected host is perfectly normal and
perfectly fine. Pipex, Demon and everyone else have been doing it for
years - if the host is up, why have mail pass through a fallback
server ?
P.
--
pir pir@??? pir@???
