Re: [courier-users] Re: Automatically use secondary MX host if primary

Sam Varshavchik wrote:

> Rodrigo Severo writes:
>
>> Sam Varshavchik says:
>>
>>> If Courier cannot contact the primary MX it will automatically
>>> contact the secondary MX.
>>
>>
>> Is there any reason for Courier only try to contact a secondary MX if
>> it can't contact the primary at all?
>
>
> Why should Courier contact a secondary MX if it was perfectly able to
> reach the primary?

Two possible reasons that came to my mind right now are: a 4xx error and
a "Connection time out" => "deferred" situation.

>
>> Wouldn't it be a good approach to try other MXs after any kind of
>> error: failed connection, 4xx error, 5xx error etc?
>
>
> When I see a sender repeatedly try to contact other MXs, even after
> being told in no uncertain terms to 5xx-off, due to them being
> blacklisted, my only response is typically a hardware firewall to such
> abusive and obnoxious behavior.

My fault. A 5xx error doesn't belong to this list. What about the others
situations (the two I mentioned above)?

>
>> I'm recently having problems sending messages to several of my
>> clients because they have MXs with one problem or the other: two top
>> priority
>
>
> So? Their MX is the one with the problem, not yours'.

You couldn't be more right. My problem is that I have, by contract, to
send several emails to this client and my messages aren't getting
through because of the problems on their MX. Such a situation isn't so
easy to deal with as it may seem: the Media Relations Departament
complains to me they aren't getting the emails they asked for. I talk to
the IT Departament of my client and they say that I am the only
institution with problems to send them emails (I am probably the only
intitution using Courier). I know their MX is problematic, you know it
also but they don't.

As I said, I believe that trying subsequent MXs on 4xx errors and
"Connection time out" would be more constructive. I can't see a problem
here. Do you?

>
>> MXs and one of them is too busy, two top priority MXs and one of them
>> is turned off (my client says it will only be turned on in case of
>> emergency!!!) etc.
>
>
> If it's turned off, and does not accept connection, Courier will go to
> the backup MX. What's the problem?

The only problem here is that I mentioned this issue when I shouldn't.
Old problem already solved.

>
>> I know that some of these problems should be solved on the other end
>> but I believe my suggestion is a more productive approach from Courier.
>
>
> Accomodating technical incompetence is never productive in the long run.

I agree with you interily in a broad sense. In a day by day matter,
having to deal with the technical incompetence of my clients, I have to
find a solution: either I can teach them (= remove the technical
incompetence) which I already tried and falied or I can accomodate. I'm
afraid I only have the second option now. I have to accomodate, sadly.
Nonetheless I believe the alternative behaviour I suggesting could be
highly efficient to better deal with real life common problems. What do
you think?


Rodrigo Severo





-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
courier-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/.../courier-users