From owner-freebsd-hubs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 20 11:07:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1702E16A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from shellma.zin.lublin.pl (shellma.zin.lublin.pl [212.182.126.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F2143D4C for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:07:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pawmal-posting@freebsd.lublin.pl) Received: by shellma.zin.lublin.pl (Postfix, from userid 1018) id 8B45C5F103; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:07:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:07:39 +0100 From: Pawel Malachowski To: Mij Message-ID: <20040120190739.GA62180@shellma.zin.lublin.pl> References: <93570F3C-4B56-11D8-9538-000A95CCF092@bitchx.it> <20040120153117.GL86062@isnic.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mx vs ns X-BeenThere: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Distributions Hubs: mail sup ftp List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:07:58 -0000 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