On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Robert Brockway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041110 20:20]:
> > Oh you mean reject mail for unknown recipients rather than bounce the
> > mail[1]. Ok, I can see why you are suggesting it but it is an RFC
> > violation.
>
> Why should it be a RFC violation to
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > if you do have a backup MX, then you need to have the same anti-spam
> > & anti-virus rules as on your primary server AND (most important!) it
> > needs to have a list of valid recipient
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:10:18PM -0500, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > backup MX is obsolete these days, very few people need it (most of
>
> This does seem to be a prevailing opinion but I think backup MXs are
> valuable now for the same reason they al
* Robert Brockway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041110 20:20]:
> Oh you mean reject mail for unknown recipients rather than bounce the
> mail[1]. Ok, I can see why you are suggesting it but it is an RFC
> violation.
Why should it be a RFC violation to reject mail for unknown recipients
with 550? If a remo
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> if you do have a backup MX, then you need to have the same anti-spam
> & anti-virus rules as on your primary server AND (most important!) it
> needs to have a list of valid recipients, so that it can 5xx reject
> mail for unknown users rather than accept
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Craig Sanders wrote:
> backup MX is obsolete these days, very few people need it (most of
This does seem to be a prevailing opinion but I think backup MXs are
valuable now for the same reason they always were - outages happen. We
have no way of knowing how long a remote MTA
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 11:56:04PM +0100, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> ## Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:04:24PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > > also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1954 +0100]:
>
> > > rbldns (djbdns) is (a) non-fr
## Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:04:24PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1954 +0100]:
> > rbldns (djbdns) is (a) non-free,
> nope.
> rbldnsd is NOT djbdns.
Confusion :)
There is rbldns, part of djbdns:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:04:24PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1954 +0100]:
> > This got me to thinking, it would be neat if one could _easily_
> > replicate RBLs on their own local DNS server.
>
> rbldns (djbdns) is (a) non-free,
no
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:30:03PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> On 2004-11-09, Steve Drees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Goerzen <> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
> >> Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
> >>
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 04:10:07PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1514 +0100]:
> > It seems to make a lot of sense to me, but it seems too that
> > I must be missing something.
>
> if the backup MX is configured exactly like the primary, th
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:14:15PM +, John Goerzen wrote:
> I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
> Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
> they are suggesting not to use redundant mail servers unless needed
> for load balancing.
Quoting Steve Drees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> John Goerzen <> wrote:
> > I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
> > Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
> > they are suggesting not to use redundant mail servers unless needed
> > for load
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Dale E. Martin wrote:
> > i usually have my backup MX accept everything and then don't treat
> > them specially on the primary. thus, policy is still enforced on the
> > primary, but there is a proper backup path *under my control* should
> > the primary be unreachable for what
also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1954 +0100]:
> This got me to thinking, it would be neat if one could _easily_
> replicate RBLs on their own local DNS server.
rbldns (djbdns) is (a) non-free, and (b) really nice and easy to use
for this purpose.
> Then you could easily
--On Tuesday, November 09, 2004 13:54 -0500 "Dale E. Martin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This got me to thinking, it would be neat if one could _easily_ replicate
RBLs on their own local DNS server. Then you could easily point primary
and secondary at your local RBL and manage it just in your D
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 05:04:09PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1652 +0100]:
> > With this approach you can't bounce RBLed messages at SMTP connect
> > time though, right? (I realize that RBLs are semi-controversial,
> > especially at t
--On Tuesday, November 09, 2004 17:04 +0100 martin f krafft
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1652 +0100]:
With this approach you can't bounce RBLed messages at SMTP connect
time though, right? (I realize that RBLs are semi-controversial,
espe
--On Tuesday, November 09, 2004 08:43 -0600 Steve Drees
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd suggest having a backup MX but make sure you have all the filtering at
your backup that you have at your primary.
Unless you can check for valid users at the secondary, don't do it.
Spammers will attempt to
John Goerzen wrote:
On 2004-11-09, Steve Drees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Goerzen <> wrote:
I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
they are suggesting not to use redundant mail servers unless n
also sprach Dale E. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1652 +0100]:
> With this approach you can't bounce RBLed messages at SMTP connect
> time though, right? (I realize that RBLs are semi-controversial,
> especially at the ISP level.)
right. i use spamassassin for RBLs
--
Please do not sen
> i usually have my backup MX accept everything and then don't treat
> them specially on the primary. thus, policy is still enforced on the
> primary, but there is a proper backup path *under my control* should
> the primary be unreachable for whatever reason.
With this approach you can't bounce R
On 2004-11-09, Steve Drees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Goerzen <> wrote:
>> I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
>> Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
>> they are suggesting not to use redundant mail servers unless needed
>>
also sprach John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.11.09.1514 +0100]:
> It seems to make a lot of sense to me, but it seems too that
> I must be missing something.
if the backup MX is configured exactly like the primary, then it
makes sense. but it's all too easy to get out of sync.
i usually hav
John Goerzen <> wrote:
> I'm looking at redoing my mail setup due primarily to spam filtering.
> Over at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Spam-Filtering-for-MX/multimx.html,
> they are suggesting not to use redundant mail servers unless needed
> for load balancing.
This is poor advice.
> It seems to ma
25 matches
Mail list logo
