Re: Anycast provider for SMTP?

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:54 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> Okay, granted you can probably cover your corner case here with a
> priority 20 MX that leads to a unicast address on one of the two
> servers. SMTP can let the rare fellow with the bisected packet flow
> gracefully fall back.

but 'well behaved smtp clients' should already be falling back right?