mx vs ns

[Pawel Malachowski]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 07:37:52PM +0100, Mij wrote:

> >I see nothing wrong with this setup as when a MX is down the
> >mail gets queued at the sender server untill the MX is reachable
> >again but NS requests don't queue up and people get impatient
> >so multiple NS records are needed but not multiple MX.
> 
> Technically, this is not completely wrong.

Actually, it's right.

> Anyway, this way you rely on sender's service for solving possible
> problems on your side. This is not good. The maximum age

Here, this is proper.

> for a message in the queue, the tryouts and retry intervals
> are not specified in any RFC. Anyone can push the queue maximum
> size lower, or shorten the max life of message in it. It's also possible
> me to run a mta without a "hard" queue, just suddendly reporting
> an error to the sender on failures, although rare.

That's Your problem then.

> >Also, multiple MX servers makes more work for the postmaster
> >in regard to filters and such in addition to be not needed.
> 
> Yes, of course more complexity implies more work.
> A backup mx does not require very much work anyway.

I don't even know, what piece of software is running on mx1,
but please note, that mx1 should accept every message from
mx backup. This means, backup mx must hold identical anti-spam
shield as mx1 does.

> On a qmail server, for example, this would require seconds to be
> set up, and probably no maintainance at all.

I guess it provides advanced content filtering out of the box? *eg*


-- 
Paweł Małachowski