Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What suppliers can you recommend, that provide an MX backup service?

share

locked by HopelessN00b Jan 2 at 17:31

This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here. This question and its answers are frozen and cannot be changed. More info: help center.

closed as off-topic by HopelessN00b Jan 2 at 17:30

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
the correct answer is that you don't need a backup MX. See Craig's very thorough answer –  Alnitak Jul 29 '09 at 10:50

1 Answer 1

up vote 16 down vote accepted

it used to be the case that having a backup MX was a Good Thing. the internet was unreliable, email was unreliable, smtp was not so common, bang-path addressing and other forms of manually-specified mail routing was common, and uucp was the mail protocol of choice.

That was a long, long time ago. It's not true today. sending MTAs will queue up undelivered mail and keep on trying to deliver it for several days (default is usually 4 or 5 days), so if your mail server is down or unreachable for a few days, your mail will eventually get delivered to you.

Today, except in very specialised circumstances, you do not need a backup MX and, in fact, it will cause you far more problems than you imagine that it might solve (in reality it solves almost no problems).

Unless your backup MX has a list of valid recipients for the domain(s) that it is supposed to receive mail for, it WILL instantly become a source of back-scatter (spam bounces to forged sender addresses). it will also be a potential route for spam to bypass some of your spam filters (because you necessarily trust your MX more than you trust random smtp servers on the net). Many spammers still target backup MX machines in preference to primary MXs for this reason (and also because secondary MXs often have weaker anti-spam filters).

NOTE: when i write "spam", i mean spam AND viruses. from my POV, they're the same thing and are generally sent by the same scumbags anyway (most viruses are spambots of one kind or another).

1st Rule of thumb: unless you know exactly why you need a backup MX and exactly what problems it may cause and exactly how you're going to prevent them, then DO NOT HAVE A BACKUP MX.

2nd Rule of thumb: unless you have complete control over the backup MX and can ensure that it has an up-to-date list of valid recipients, and roughly equivalent spam-filters as your primary MX, DO NOT HAVE A BACKUP MX.

3rd Rule of Thumb: see Rules 1 & 2. If in doubt, DO NOT HAVE A BACKUP MX.

starting to see the pattern?

BTW, you can take advantage of spammers targetting secondary MXs. e.g. i block a lot of spam by running a bogus least-priority MX that responds with 450 tempfail to every delivery attempt. many spambots target that and don't even try the primary MX, so the load on my real mail servers is greatly reduced. Legitimate senders never try it because my mail servers are always on (and if by some chance they aren't, the sender gets a 450 temporary failure code and tries again later)

share
    
You can silently blackhole incoming spam from a secondary MX host at your primary MX as easily as you can coming from other servers. In fact, it's probably easier since you know who your secondary MX's are. –  Evan Anderson Jul 28 '09 at 23:56
2  
@Evan: yep, but you can't 5xx reject it as that will cause the secondary MX to generate a bounce, possibly/probably causing backscatter. by contrast, if the secondary MX had adequate spam-filtering (and a list of valid recipients) then it could 5xx reject it without risk of backscatter. once any of your MXs have accepted the mail, your only good choices are to deliver it or discard it - bouncing it is not a good option. –  cas Jul 29 '09 at 1:30
    
@Craig: That's why I said "silently blackhole". (I also think that no SMTP servers should be generating bounce messages bound for the Internet. Backscatter has ruined that "feature" of the protocol for all of us.) –  Evan Anderson Jul 29 '09 at 3:11
    
@Evan: again, yep. i was writing to clarify for others, not to dispute what you said. it's the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: to 5xx Reject undeliverable/invalid/unwanted mail is Good, discarding (silently blackhole) it is Bad but sometimes necessary, and accept-and-bounce is Ugly. –  cas Jul 29 '09 at 6:50
    
Point taken, Craig. Thanks. :) –  Kjensen Jul 30 '09 at 17:24

protected by Community Jan 2 at 17:31

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.