[Gllug] VPS, MX records and Virtualmin

[Nix]

On 19 Mar 2011, David Damerell spake thusly:

> On Saturday, 19 Mar 2011, Nix wrote:
>>On 18 Mar 2011, Neil Macvicar stated:
>>>On your point of problematic MX records, if you were serious about
>>>having deliverability, you would have had at least two MX records,
>>>each record resolving to a machine distinctly separate network wise
>>>and company wise. This would have mitigated the problem you outlined.
>>Yeah,
>
> ... yeah?
>
> These days sending sites will hang onto mail for a long time if they
> can't reach your MXes; it's pretty hard to lose any.

I just gave an example of losing a whole month's. You don't lose email
if the link is down for a day or two, but what if my machine suffers
major hardware failure and it's two weeks before I can replace it?
That's longer than the timeout period on most MTAs' outgoing queues, but
not longer than my secondary MX will hold on to it.

>                                                      "Only spammers
> use secondary MX"; I can't see much benefit to a secondary MX for
> individuals or small organisations provided you a) will notice when
> your primary MX goes down and b) have a good procedure to deal with
> that situation quickly.

b) is hard if I'm 200 miles away.

-- 
NULL && (void)
--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug