Author: David Woodhouse Date: To: Matthias Waffenschmidt CC: exim-dev, Kai Risku Subject: Re: [exim-dev] [PATCH] Rudimentary XFORWARD-support in smtp
transport
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 14:39 +0200, Matthias Waffenschmidt wrote: > This second scenario is the very typical situation to use callouts,
> isn't it? At least if you are an ISP that has no control over the
> second MTA and customers demanding a fallback MX...
>
> The more information the second MTA can get about the original mail
> the better.
Yes, that makes a certain amount of sense, I suppose. Especially as it's
more _likely_ to be a spammer if they're connecting the secondary MX
while the primary is actually alive.
But still, there aren't that many things that the primary MX would be
rejecting for that the secondary couldn't also reject for, based on the
same information. Except that the secondary might also have to pander to
the "I _like_ my daily pr0n-spam" nutters, I suppose :)
