Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Daniel Tiefnig wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I posted a similar problem to this list, some(...) time ago:
>> http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20060501/msg00042.html
>
> Was that the problem that was supposed to be fixed by this change in
> 4.64?
>
> PH/36 [...]
Hmm, it would solve that special case with greylisting, yes. But I think
there may still be a more general problem, with exim generating a
permanent error due to the (long-lasting) 4xx reply from the primary MX,
without trying the (so called "working") secondary MX if there is one.
I'm not sure though, whether this really is a bug, or one may call it a
feature.
Does it make sense to deliver to the 2nd MX if we know the 1st MX does
not accept mail for the address? Or better: do we know enough about the
setup of the target MX system to make a reasonable decision? I don't
think so.
lg,
daniel
