29 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] MX randomizing: t...
FromSent OnAttachments
Rodrigo SeveroJun 22, 2005 1:28 pm 
Sam VarshavchikJun 22, 2005 2:05 pm 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 23, 2005 2:32 am 
ArnoJun 23, 2005 4:06 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 23, 2005 5:12 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 23, 2005 6:06 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 23, 2005 6:24 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 23, 2005 6:58 am 
Ben KennedyJun 23, 2005 7:07 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 23, 2005 7:26 am 
Gordon MessmerJun 23, 2005 8:39 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 23, 2005 1:06 pm 
Alessandro VeselyJun 24, 2005 12:04 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 24, 2005 4:32 am 
Scott MorizotJun 24, 2005 5:31 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 24, 2005 6:00 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 24, 2005 6:43 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 24, 2005 7:06 am 
Scott MorizotJun 24, 2005 7:13 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 24, 2005 8:02 am 
Gordon MessmerJun 24, 2005 8:21 am 
Gordon MessmerJun 24, 2005 8:26 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 24, 2005 8:50 am 
Scott MorizotJun 24, 2005 9:48 am 
Sam VarshavchikJun 24, 2005 10:33 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 24, 2005 10:41 am 
Alessandro VeselyJun 25, 2005 9:29 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 26, 2005 7:35 am 
Rodrigo SeveroJun 26, 2005 9:08 am 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [courier-users] MX randomizing: trying to understand thesources.Actions...
From:Scott Morizot (tmor@sd.is.irs.gov)
Date:Jun 24, 2005 9:48:10 am
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

On 24 Jun 2005 at 12:48, Rodrigo Severo wrote:

I agree completely. It isn't bind randomness strategy per si that creates the distortion. Nor is Courier's MX choosing strategy either. It's the *interaction* of bind randomness strategy and Courier MX choosing strategy that produces the distortion.

Which reinforces my point, I think. If the administrator of the mail servers behind the MX records wants to ensure that all of their same priority MX'ed mail systems are attempted, they should put together their MX lists appropriately. Personally, I wouldn't mix a lot of same *and* different priority MX records in the MX list. I would either use all the same priority or establish different priorities to create essentially a backup system and overload the A record for the first MX'ed system. I've done both and been satisfied with the results.

But the more you describe the issue, the less it looks like something that should be resolved at the point of the sending system.

Scott