Aaron Wolfe wrote: > Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a > response): > > Michael Scheidell -> "Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest > priority." Bowie Bailey -> "I would say that it is too risky to put a > non-smtp > host as your primary > MX" > > nolisting.org -> "longterm use has yet to yield a single false > positive " Marc Perkel -> "YES - it works... I have had no false > positives at all using this." > > > I am interested in this technique, and have been for some time. It > seems like every discussion of it leads to a group saying "you will > lose mail" and a group saying "you will not lose mail". Is there any > way to resolve this once and for all? It's hard for me to see why > either side would misrepresent the truth, but obviously someone is > wrong here. > > One thing I notice (and I certainly could be wrong here)... the > proponents seem to be actually using nolisting and claiming no > problems, whilst those against the idea seem to be predicting problems > rather than reporting on actual issues they have experienced.
It is quite true that I have not used the nolisting approach. I have followed a couple of quite long threads on this list discussing (arguing over?) this approach. My take on it is that there are probably enough flawed servers out there to cause problems with this approach. My main point was that you can list a non-responsive secondary server instead. This will give you less of a drop in spam, but it should be less likely to cause problems. By all means...try it and report your results. Someone else reported that they use a functional primary mailserver, but it is firewalled off from the Internet. This gives the same effect, but allows for opening holes to allow problem servers to get through. This may be a good compromise -- Bowie
