also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> [2004.10.15.1448 +0200]: > Just to make it clear, I am advocating two *good* machines. ENOSUCHTHING wrt it not failing. > > Which is another good reason for not having such redundant > > servers. > > Now, that is a bit too far. The correct answer is to monitor the > damn things. And any sort of monitoring that would not catch > a problem is not good enough. A good enough reacive (as opposed > to predictive) monitoring for email is rather easy to do (just > send one directly to the MX, and freak if it does not send it back > to you in a given time window). While I understand Russell's concerns, I think that we should have a second machine to be able to swap in. If the primary every goes down, then the secondary must be able to take over, or else we will have problems with the project. We cannot assume that the MX admin will be able to fix the problem ASAP. About backup MX... well, we can put them elsewhere. I run a couple reliable MXs and could also serve as backup for Debian. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature