[Mailman-Users] Re: Do I need an MX Record

[Will Yardley]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:34:02AM -0500, Jon Carnes wrote:

> In DNS you would have something like:
>   lists.mlsnet.com.    A      216.216.23.43
>                        MX     10  lists.mlsnet.com
>                        MX     100 mail.mlsnet.com
> 
> In this scenario all mail to user at lists.mlsnet.com will be delivered to
> lists.mlsnet.com.  If that server does not respond then the mail will be
> queued up on your main mail server: mail.mlsnet.com
> 
> This assumes that you can setup the other mail server to act as a
> secondary.  If not, then just leave it off.
> 
> And "yes" virginia, you *do* need an MX record.  If you don't have an MX
> record then any mail to lists.mlsnet.com will be dumped out to your main
> mail server (using your domains MX record).  You could setup some
> internal routes on that server to shuffle mail over to lists.mlsnet.com,
> but that would be counter to your stated intention of moving the load
> away from the main mail server.

???

If there's an 'A' record for lists.mlsnet.com, and this is the host they
want mail for lists.mlsnet.com to be delivered to, there is no need for
an MX record. It's good practice to have one, but it's absolutely not
required.

And if you're trying to say that (if an MX record for lists.mlsnet.com
is absent) mail for lists.mlsnet.com will be delivered to the machine
that's the MX record for mlsnet.com itself, you are completely, 100%
wrong.

-- 
The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope! But
even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does
it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this
war? - Michael Moore