Not only are they breaking their email, they are doing it for naught. Spammers often PREFER to use a target's second or third MX host. That way, their deluge doesn't have to compete with every one else's traffic.
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 2:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Delivery to Alternate MX Records The people you have spoken to are crack smoking maniacs, not an ISP support team. 4xx is a temporary error. This is an invitation to try again later. This is what you have. 5.xx would be a fatal error; give up sending email bub it ain't going to happen. You'd see this if they'd deleted the mail accounts, blocked you from sending, whatever. To the best of my knowledge the only time that exchange or any other mail system "should" look for the next MX record is if it fails to connect to the first one. Not if it connects just fine and then gets told to try again later or sod off. -----Original Message----- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 09/09/2003 00:28 To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: Delivery to Alternate MX Records Hi All, I'm a bit puzzled by something and I'm hoping that someone can help out. There's a particular domain, seanet.com, that we can't send messages to at the moment. Any message sent to this domain hangs in the IMC queue with the error, 452 4.3.0 Cannot write message to disk. According to this ISP's support group they've recently reconfigured their main mail server so it can no longer receive messages from the outside world, and I assume that the error we're seeing is a result of this reconfiguration. They further claim that our server should try to deliver messages to their second or third mail server, something it definitely isn't doing. So here are my questions. Should an Exchange server (5.5, by the way) try the next MX record after getting a 452 from the primary server, and are there any settings in Exchange that affect this behavior? As an additional philosophical question, does it strike anyone else as strange that they should deliberately put an essentially malfunctioning server at the address of their first MX record in the name of spam fighting and security? -Peter ______________________________________________ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .+x )r뺷yiǶ)٥+rrʸW{j .+--xm ,)r( \ٖy'iǡ)l+-rrʸWZ{fץjx b{.n+j)mWrl &!jx .+-i٢Xf{0y
