From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D65FD138350 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:02:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F98EE1070; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:02:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15300E1060 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 17:02:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id 036H2OZO031829 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 12:02:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Alternate Incoming Mail Server To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200406153445.yzeewcorrb7vjtni@ad-gentoo-main> <2bc75a9f-d52c-2e08-8fd6-bd0ec301e6f2@gentoo.org> <474774D5-DAEB-4E07-BF0D-5DE2B7A712AC@antarean.org> From: Grant Taylor Organization: TNet Consulting Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 11:02:27 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: c30eea0c-e469-4194-8a29-4326ad321592 X-Archives-Hash: e6365e56fb803160ff2561bbc0b19944 On 4/6/20 10:43 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Well, I can't refute an anecdote without more information, but if > you're worried about this you can create the same MX record twice so > that the "backup" is the primary. That's not going to work as well as you had hoped. I've run into many MTAs that check things and realize that the hosts in multiple MX records resolve to the same IP and treat them as one. You may get this to work. But I would never let clients to rely on this. -- Grant. . . . unix || die