That right there is enough of a reason to not run secondary weighted MX records. There would be no point if you actually had increased traffic to that MX. In theory, if you increased the anti-spam measures to be equal, what would be the point of having lower MX records other than to put valid mail to an MX on the site with the biggest amount of users (and therefore most likely although not certainly going to get the most email volume?)
With today's spammers and other phraudsters prowling looking for weaknesses, it takes away the need for a lower weighted mx in most cases. Using a backup mail delivery system service might be a reason to use lower weighted, but I can't think of any scenarios where I host my own where I'd put out anything other than equally available, powerful and connected systems. It no longer makes a lot of sense to me in today's environments since I can't predict where the load would be sent at a given point in time. My $0.04 anyway. Al On 12/15/05, Steve Rochford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Beware of the fact that many spammers now target low priority MX records on > the assumption that they will be "backup" devices and perhaps doing less spam > checking. > > Over the past 7 days, an average of 61% of all mail delivered to our > secondary MX has been Spam compared to 39% of that to the 1y MX (and I > suspect that the actual percentage of spam is higher - it's just not being > picked up!) > > On the basis that nothing should be delivering to the 2y MX while the 1y is > available, I've made sure that it's running ever fiercer spam catching rules > in a bid to keep out the dross! > > Steve > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of AdamT > Sent: Mon 12/12/2005 18:13 > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [Way OT] DNS MX load balancing questions... > > > > On 12/11/05, Freddy HARTONO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That means it makes no sense to invest in having 1 backup MX of lower > > priorities? > > > It makes perfect sense to have a backup MX of a lower priority. Most > of your users may be located in New York, so you'd want most of your > mail routed in that way, and would only want the mail server at your > remote site in London to accept mail if NYC was down for some reason. > Your London server might be sitting on a very slow connection to the > outside world, or maybe it's a fairly old machine and not up to > handling high loads, meaning you'd probably only want it to be used in > an emergency. > > -- > AdamT > "Maidenhead is *not* in Kent" > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ��V�r�y�&��-�4���i�b��b��
