Re: [Exim] Is it me...?

In response to Peter Radcliffe:

> 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

Agreed.

> 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.

There can be some debate about that. As Paul said, it does mean that
the sending machine spends time trying to contact the
intermittently-connected host. It also means that any extra
facilities that the ISP offers on its mail servers would be by-passed.

> Pipex, Demon and everyone else have been doing it for
> years

Pipex may have been but Demon have _never_ done this in the UK or in
the Netherlands. (I am writing from a private address but employed by
Demon Internet Nederland.) I believe that some of our competitors do
it in the Netherlands and from Peter's comments, evidently in the UK
too, but this is the stuff of religious wars.

We can all agree that having the only MX, or all MXes, point to
intermittently-connected host(s), is indeed a mis-configuration.

Gyan