RE: Multiple MX Records

  • From: <paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:17:22 -0000

Hi all

Many thanks for all your help.

Regards,

Paul Lemonidis.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) 
  To: [ExchangeList] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 4:37 PM
  Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Multiple MX Records


  http://www.MSExchange.org/

  The problem is all on the receiving end. By starting a session and returning 
a 421 code, they are telling your server to try again later. Your server is 
doing exactly what it was told to do. There is no reason for your server to try 
the other MX records. BTW, the following information is available at 
http://www.networksorcery.com/enp/rfc/rfc1893.txt





    4.X.X   Persistent Transient Failure        A persistent transient failure 
is one in which the message as       sent is valid, but some temporary event 
prevents the successful       sending of the message.  Sending in the future 
may be successful.



       X.2.X   Mailbox Status           Mailbox status indicates that something 
having to do with the          mailbox has cause this DSN.  Mailbox issues are 
assumed to be          under the general control of the recipient.



       X.2.1   Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages           The mailbox 
exists, but is not accepting messages.  This may          be a permanent error 
if the mailbox will never be re-enabled          or a transient error if the 
mailbox is only temporarily          disabled.



  John Tolmachoff

  Engineer/Consultant/Owner

  eServices For You



  -----Original Message-----
  From: paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:paul_lemonidis@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 5:31 AM
  To: [ExchangeList]
  Subject: [exchangelist] Multiple MX Records



  http://www.MSExchange.org/

  Hi All



  Has anyone else come across this one? I have outbound messages queued up for 
domains where there primary server is down. These queue up and are not 
delivered which would seem fair enough on the face of it. Just one problem the 
destination system has multiple MX records and the other hosts are up. Why does 
Exchange refuse to use them? Even if I force the connection they do not leave? 
Eventually they go of their own accord but this takes several minutes or even 
hours? I cannot say at this stage if this is as a result of the primary server 
coming back on line. I suspect it is.



  > server 217.20.32.36
  Default Server:  ns1.lon.ipmh.telecity.net
  Address:  217.20.32.36



  > set q=mx
  > mtsn.org.uk
  Server:  ns1.lon.ipmh.telecity.net
  Address:  217.20.32.36



  Non-authoritative answer:
  mtsn.org.uk     MX preference = 10, mail exchanger = 
scanmailext.easymail.va.ifl
  .net
  mtsn.org.uk     MX preference = 20, mail exchanger = mx1.easymail.va.ifl.net
  mtsn.org.uk     MX preference = 30, mail exchanger = mx2.easymail.va.ifl.net



  mtsn.org.uk     nameserver = dns2.rmplc.co.uk
  mtsn.org.uk     nameserver = dns0.rmplc.co.uk
  mtsn.org.uk     nameserver = dns1.rmplc.co.uk
  scanmailext.easymail.va.ifl.net internet address = 213.18.255.195
  mx1.easymail.va.ifl.net internet address = 213.18.248.112
  mx2.easymail.va.ifl.net internet address = 213.18.248.112
  >



  I can telnet the second server just fine. The first one drops the connection 
almost immediately. I suspect that is the answer? I am guessing that since it 
does make a connection of sorts, albeit very briefly, it never tries the second 
record as it thinks it is connected and thus never checks the other MX records.



  Above and below are relevant screen shots.



  421 SMTP service not available, closing transmission channel




  Connection to host lost.



  Can someone tell me if I am correct and if there is any way around this 
please. I know that strictly speaking, if my theory is correct, it could be 
classed as a firewall issue at the remote end but that doesn't help me deliver 
mail. The only short term way I see around this is to set up an extra Virtual 
SMTP server and restrict the address space to just that domain and forward to 
the second record host explicitly rather than using DNS. Although that won't 
help with the trapped messages I suspect?



  Any ideas, comments or suggestions please?



  Many thanks in advance,



  Regards,



  Paul Lemonidis. 

  ------------------------------------------------------
  List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
  Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
  Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ
  ------------------------------------------------------
  Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
  Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com
  No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org
  Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/
  Network Security Library: http://www.secinf.net/
  Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
  ------------------------------------------------------ 

  ------------------------------------------------------
  List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
  Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
  Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ
  ------------------------------------------------------
  Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
  Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com
  No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org
  Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/
  Network Security Library: http://www.secinf.net/
  Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com
  ------------------------------------------------------ 

Other related posts: