multiple MX records versus DNS round robin

[Stamey]

That is just too simple.
@    IN    MX    10    Mail1.domain.com.
@    IN    MX    20    Mail2.domain.com.
@    IN    MX    30    Mail3.domain.com

You put your first preference with the lowest "cost" and if that one's down,
it will go the the next higher cost server diesignated in the mail records.

--
Chris Stamey
-----------------
Me at Stamey.nu
http://www.Stamey.nu
http://www.Farther.com/VBAnswerNetwork
Senior Network Engineer
Windows NT Administrator
Aspiring AS400 Administrator
VB Developer
ASP and Web Developer
Got a little JavaScript under my belt too.
More to come...
-----------------
I'm not a pessimist, I'm a "Realistic Optimist". I still see the glass as
half full, I just want to know who the Hell's been drinking out of it.
-Don't remember the comedian's name.

Erwin Richard wrote in message <3777cf9a at rba-bone>...
Hello,

We are considering implementing a redundant sendmail server in parallel to
our existing mailhost. It should share the normal load as well as provide a
backup if one of the servers is down. As I see it now, we have two
possibilities:

1. define multiple MX records with the same preference level

2. define multiple A records for our mailhost

What's the better solution? Solution 1 would require to change all zone
files that have MX records that point to our mailhost but I'm willing to do
this if it gives us considerable benefits. Any recommendations?

Thanks

Erwin