Re: Secondary NS/MX required

From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
To: "Public discussion of gnome.org services" <gnome-infrastructure gnome org>, GNOME sysadmin list <gnome-sysadmin gnome org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Secondary NS/MX required
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:31:56 +0100

<quote who="Ross Golder">

> OK, we've had two offers for slave nameservers which we'll follow up, but
> still no offers of a secondary MX.

Why do we need a secondary MX? I'd suggest that having a secondary MX is
more trouble than it's worth, and hosting a secondary MX for someone is
definitely more trouble than it's worth. Let's just avoid the damage by not
having one at all. The important thing, our DNS, is fine.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia                http://linux.conf.au/
 
       "I think of the last year or two as being the biggest private
         investment in public works in decades." - Andrew Tridgell

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Secondary NS/MX required
  - From: Ross Golder

References:
- Re: Secondary NS/MX required
  - From: Ross Golder

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]