On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 06:58:13PM +0200, Rene Bartsch wrote:
> > Unless one is sufficiently motivated to use a separate Postfix instance
> > for each interface, there is little to gain from different host names
> > on different IPs.
>
> It's a try to avoid UCE but get valid mail fast. The idea is to set
> the first MX-Record of the domain to an invalid hostname, the second one
> to the first IP of Postfix and the third one to the second IP of Postfix.
Sounds like a variant of "nolisting"...
> My hope is spammers will give up on the first invalid MX-record while a
> correctly configured MTA will try the second MX-record and get's a temporary
> server error from Postfix-GLD and tries the third MX-record on
> which Postfix-GLD accepts the mail as it has been greylisted on the
> second MX-record/first IP, while lazy spammers will give up before.
The usual suggestions apply. Scan the archives, but in a nutshell, avoid
forcing every legitimate client to make two tries all the time.
> All OpenRelay-test-tools complained about the wrong hostname
Overzealous pedantry.
> and TLS doesn't like wrong hostnames either.
Can you elaborate on this? TLS looks at names in certificates, not
at banner names...
I very much doubt you need the per-service "myhostname" settings.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
