Re: Secondary NS/MX required

On พฤ., 2004-07-08 at 20:31, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Ross Golder">
> > OK, we've had two offers for slave nameservers which we'll follow up, but
> > still no offers of a secondary MX.
> Why do we need a secondary MX? I'd suggest that having a secondary MX is
> more trouble than it's worth, and hosting a secondary MX for someone is
> definitely more trouble than it's worth. Let's just avoid the damage by not
> having one at all. The important thing, our DNS, is fine.

Thinking about it, you're probably right. I guess if a secondary MX is
important, we should set it up on one of the servers we actually have
control over, so that we can match anti-spam/virus settings etc.

I'll stop hunting for MXs and just sort out those a couple of backup NS
for now.


> - Jeff

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]