Hi Gary, > > >> 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.
Something somebody suggested to me was to create a low priority MX that did exist but had a lookup of 127.0.0.1. I'd have thought this might have more luck than creating a completely bogus MX. Have you tried this? BTW - check RFC 3330, RFC 1035 before implementing these measures ;) Rgds Pete ------------------------------------------------------- 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/
