Milter-greylist

Johnny Sletteland <johnny@...> wrote:

> Is a secondary MX really needed in a normal scenario where your primary
> has a fairly constant link to the internet? All MTAs with respect for
> themselves will queue the mail and retry sending it for you until you
> get it.
> 
> The way I see it, the world is your secondary MX. 

In my opinion, the secondary MX is not worth it anymore. It enable the
mail to be queued longer on a single machine (which means less load when
the primary gets back online), but it's hard to deal with spam on a
secondary. For instance, you need to refuse mail to invalid recipient
addresses, which might not be possible if you don't have administrative
access to the secondary. 

I beleive in multiple primary MXs, though. That's a nice way to
distribute the load and scale better for higher mail volumes. 

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
Il y a 10 sortes de personnes dans le monde: ceux qui comprennent 
le binaire et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas.
manu@...