[geeks] ADMINISTRIVIA: Changes to mail delivery policies

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Wednesday, March 13, 2002 at 12:21:26 (+0000), David Cantrell wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [geeks] ADMINISTRIVIA: Changes to mail delivery policies
>
> Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single person whose mail servers
> are liable to die for a full day.

You don't seem to understand the full scope of the problem, since you
are ignoring the majority of failure cases, most of which are totally
out of the hands of the postmaster concerned.

> > Secondary MX hosts are very rare and increasingly so.
> 
> Tough shit.  Not having them is mad.

You should learn a bit more about network infrastructure before you
spout such blatant nonsense.  About the only reason to have a secondary
MX these days is for load balancing purposes, in which case you probably
want peer MXers, not one or more secondaries.

> >                                                        It is impossible
> > to run a secure MTA with a secondary MX that you do not control
> 
> It is impossible to run a secure MTA full stop.

Again you miss the entire point only to spout your nonsense.

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods at acm.org>;  <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;  <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>