On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Peter Radcliffe wrote:
> Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey+lists@???> probably said:
> > Is it really that useful? After all, if the only MX for your domain is
> > down, then stuff should just queue on the sender's system.
>
> I find it useful to be able to queue it up somewhere I control and
> then deliver in one batch forcibly afterwards, rather than wait for it
> to trickle in.
Quite. And, if your host is a busy one, it won't just trickle in when
you come back - the whole world will start beating on your door
simultaneously. (A long time ago I saw servers die from this.) Much
better to have it all queued up on a backup local host that can pass it
in a controlled manner, over a fast local connection.
> > I really think that you need to control all of the MXes for your domain.
> > If that means running with only one MX than that is the way to do it.
>
> Agreed.
I also agree with that. If you only own one machine, then you are indeed
better off with one MX because you control the access policy.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
