Milter-greylist

manu@... wrote:
 > Oliver Fromme wrote:
 > 
 > > Is there a _simple_ solution to solve the problem?
 > 
 > Get rid of secondary MX? :-)

I cannot do that.

 > In my situation, I have multiple primary MX to take care of failures,
 > but network outages are rare enough to make secondary MX useless (and
 > even harmful, for the reasons you explain). Your situation may be
 > different, of course.

I definitely want one (or more) backup MX servers for
redundancy.  Network outages do happen sometimes, and
so do hardware failures or human mistakes (e.g. the
admin inserts an error in some configuration file).

Only one of the MX can be primary (in my case), because
only that primary has all user accounts and knows which
addresses are valid.  The secondaries should only queue
messages and forward them to the primary.

In another situation i would like to offer a backup MX
service to a friend of mine who only has one (primary)
mailserver.  I don't care about what users he has and
what addresses are valid for him, and I certainly don't
want to change anything on my server every time he adds
or removes a user on his box.  I just want to setup the
backup MX service and be done with it, similar to a
secondary name server.

Maybe that's just wishful thinking.  :-)

Best regards
   Oliver


-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"Clear perl code is better than unclear awk code; but NOTHING
comes close to unclear perl code"  (taken from comp.lang.awk FAQ)