Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:01:42 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Nico Meijer <nico.meijer@zonnet.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backup Mail Server Questions Message-ID: <20040927090142.1719d106.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <4157A0F9.6010007@zonnet.nl> References: <493F1EDF-0FE0-11D9-A586-000D9333E43C@secure-computing.net> <20040926143211.02d40949.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <4157A0F9.6010007@zonnet.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nico Meijer <nico.meijer@zonnet.nl> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > > Backup SMTP is even more difficult to justify. The SMTP standard has > > transient failure recovery built into it, so if your net connection is > > down for an hour or so, mail delivery will resume when the connection > > comes back up. > > But, with backup MX, *you* are in charge of all mails in the queue. > Routing messages to a new primary becomes so much more easier. > > End users are less likely to get "couldn't deliver yet but will keep > trying" messages from their own smtp-server. (It appears to me that most > users, when given such automated notice, start running around in panic > and making frantic, unnecessary phonecalls. This was different some > years ago.) Are you saying that it's better for users not to know that their mail has been delayed? It's better for them to assume that it arrived when it really hasn't? If folks run around in a panic, then it's a training issue, not an excuse for you to quell useful informational messages. Again, I have many _very_ strong opinions on how email should be managed, this is one of them. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040927090142.1719d106.wmoran>