On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 19:57 +0800, John Summerfied wrote: > If the final destination is down, the users aren't going to get their > email regardless of whether it's held on originators' servers or some > secondary MX between, Depends on which part of the final destination goes down. Sites don't always disappear altogether. If one MX fails, for example, having another one next to it (*not* in between or in front of it) provides perfect resilience. > Still haven't established (to my mind) the need for backup mail exchanges. That wasn't my intention. I was arguing against both backup servers and HA for MTA's. I agree that there is no point in using intermediate servers, and I believe there is no point running two MX'es in some sort of load-balancing or fail-over configuration. Unless of course, the machines also run the back-end stuff (pop, imap, webmail, Exchange, Notes, etc), which is a very bad idea IMO. Cheers Steffen.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
