Ben Scott wrote:
> Personally, I also find these kinds of strategies very rude. You're > increasing *my* mail server's load because *you're* not willing to > implement a proper anti-spam solution. Don't be a jerk about your > mail system. That makes you part of the problem -- not much better > than the spammers. I once added an high numbered MX entry in a few domains which pointed to localhost. While it really did reduce the incoming spam, I recall someone getting a bit irate about spooling my mail on a GNHLUG server till my server was back up... <G> Now, I'm back to a dozen blacklists (mostly banned by country), requiring proper PTR's and DNS entries for mail servers... I've heard a 5 second connection delay helps, too. (Whatever the SMTP "wait" response is...) > I also have a suspicion (totally unsubstantiated) that most spammers > don't really care about MX priority. I suspect they just look for > every MX they can find and fire spam at all of them. The reason > secondary MXes have a rep for being an avenue for spam is that people If you point it out, they'll take notice. If enough people do it, the spammers will work around it. Many spam systems will use a secondary MX server because lazy admins will put all their anti-spam measures on their primary one, forget about their secondary and simply accept all incoming mail from the secondary server. This is especially true when you use a third party backup MX server. > Personally, unless you're multi-homed or very large, I don't seem > much purpose for multiple MX records these days anyway. Well, maybe > if your primary MX is incredibly unreliable, but if so, the proper > thing to do is fix your MX. With the usual spooling time of 4 days, if your mail server is down that long these days, you have SERIOUS problems. Brian _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
