Gary wrote: > One thought is to thwart the common practice of spammers that target > only the secondary MX.
> Have you considered doing something like this: > 10 MX server1.example.com > 15 MX dummy.example.com > 20 MX server2.example.com > resulted in a 25% reduction of traffic for me. Matt wrote: >> That's actually a good idea :) I'll consider that! But all of our MX >> records are the same priority anyway, but adding a fake secondary might >> actually be pretty neat (since spammers mght skip "relay1" and "relay2" >> and go right for the priority 20 server which wont exist. As a test, I set my system up like this: 10 MX server1.example.com 10 MX server2.example.com 20 MX dummy.example.com I admit my samples a very limited, but: My traffic level is back to what it was before, so I would say this technique has little effect when used with round robin MX records. Gary V ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
