[Mailman-Users] Virtual sites
jimpop at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 14 08:13:14 CEST 2006
On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 00:34 -0500, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 12:51 AM -0400 2006-09-14, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > Looking up MX records is also the job of an MUA, and Mailman is very
> > much like an MUA, albeit on steroids. IMHO of course.
> I don't know of an MUA on the planet that looks up MX records.
> Check your RFCs. Checking MX records is most definitely the purview
> of MTAs, since they're the ones expected to implement 2821 and to
> ensure the rules of 2822 are followed (and correct if not).
OK, fair enough. Back to Mailman, why is checking MX records (or at
least allowing specification of 2 or more SMTPHOSTS) a bad idea? It
just seems to make good sense to me, considering failover, load
balancing, resiliency, etc.
More information about the Mailman-Users