Re: [exim] Is a secondary MX worth the effort?

> One of the things I've considered for #2 is having a secondary MX
> which is configured to give back a 4xx for everything.
> However, I don't know if there are sending hosts who would fail to
> go back to the primary MX when it came back up.
>

This is an interesting idea and I feel like an idiot for not thinking
of it myself - course that's why we have these lists :-) Does anyone
know how effective this method may be? I like it because of it's
simplicity, low/no maintenance, and ridiculously low system
requirements. I could have one or more $15/month VPS servers running
in this role.

However, the question remains, is this method more effective than
leaving it up to the sending MTA to retry a connection failure?

-Ken