At 7:30 AM -0700 5/23/04, Warren Michelsen wrote: >At 1:54 PM -0700 5/20/04, Elliot Wilen wrote: >>If both the secondary and the primary are running the same spam protection, how much >>additional spam is likely to come through the secondary? > >In my case, my secondary is another SIMS box with the same RBLs and spamtraps. It's >quite effective. > >> >>The argument against having a secondary MX is quite strong when the proposed machine >>is out of your control and/or has a less discriminating antispam policy. > >I agree. If the secondary's anti-spam features match the primary's, I don't see the >presence of a secondary as a detriment.
My spam analyzer script looks for the IP address of my secondary as the originating address; if it sees it, it looks for the next "Received:" header, because it can be trusted, and puts THAT IP address into the blacklist. ############################################################# This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
