Backup MX

csmager · 3 Apr 2006 at 17:21

Does anyone have an opinion on this? I've read two conflicting opinions.

Firstly, it's a good idea:
If your server is down, it will take mail for you and redeliver when you're online. It'll probably hold it for around a week.

Secondly, it's a bad idea:
It gives a false impression the mail's been delivered when it hasn't. Most mail servers will retry sending for 5 days and give delayed/failure notices so the sender knows that the mail hasn't been delivered/read whatever.

So, which is it?

Cheers.

zetec452 · 3 Apr 2006 at 17:28

I've always seen it as a plus myself. Especially if you have clients who have their own mail servers at head offices and such.

We are just about to purchase a second backup mx server at work.

CoXeY · 3 Apr 2006 at 18:38

Depends on the scenario i suppose. If you want to disguise the fact that you're experiencing server problems then a second MX is a good idea - the message will be accepted without issuing the sender a bounce message. The flip side of that coin is that the sender assumes the recipient has recieved their message...

R4z0r · 3 Apr 2006 at 18:51

I would say you are usually better off with out it.

Single biggest problem is spammers. They constantly use backup MX which are often very accepting of messages to bypass the primary MX which may be configured with blacklists, etc.

As you pointed out, most mailserver will queue the message for a while anyway and if your ISP can't get a mailserver back online in that time then it would be wise to change.

csmager · 3 Apr 2006 at 18:56

R4z0r said:
As you pointed out, most mailserver will queue the message for a while anyway and if your ISP can't get a mailserver back online in that time then it would be wise to change.

I'd agree. I'm talking mainly about running your own mailserver though - e.g. Exchange 2003. I'm running my own mailserver, and at the moment F9 provide a free backup MX service. I have to manually dequeue the mail (pain!).

F9's ADSL service is becoming a joke, and I was wondering whether it's actually important to have a Backup MX after reading comments like the ones I originally posted.

AndyC · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:10

Good question,

I take the view if it's doing something useful like filtering mail then yes if it's just a relay then it adds another link and I'd say no.

I'd rather get a bounce back and know the mails been delayed.

Personal choice I guess at the end of the day.

zetec452 · 4 Apr 2006 at 07:37

csmager said:
I'd agree. I'm talking mainly about running your own mailserver though - e.g. Exchange 2003. I'm running my own mailserver, and at the moment F9 provide a free backup MX service. I have to manually dequeue the mail (pain!).

F9's ADSL service is becoming a joke, and I was wondering whether it's actually important to have a Backup MX after reading comments like the ones I originally posted.

It sounds like the only reason they provide backup MX is because your ADSL is pants.

Personally i'd rather rely on my backup mx kit rather than somebody else's server relaying.

tolien · 4 Apr 2006 at 11:15

PN have offered backup MX since long before they were quite the farce they are now

Magsy · 4 Apr 2006 at 15:26

This is what I do...cheapskate option with a little added security.

My domain is held by a 3rd party, they have email forwarding on a per account basis.

I set the primary MX to my server and the backup to theirs. If my kit is down, the mail hits their MX and gets forwarded using their mail forwarding to a gmail account, like a sort of 'catchall'.

I check the gmail every couple of days, but so far in nearly a year, I've only had two messeges end up in there. Gmail also has a brilliant spam filter, so it filters the usual backup MX spam nicely.

I was worried about periods when I was away, like on holiday, when I could have an outage and be helpless to fix it for weeks. Most backup MX's don't hold mail for that long, 2 weeks seemed common when I looked...

ps. I'm on Eclipse ADSL, running Exchange 2k3 with GFI MailEssentials.