Ian Eiloart wrote: > --On 9 July 2007 20:31:01 +0100 "Phil (Medway Hosting)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> My point >> being that if this method became the norm, then it would not be long >> before spammers wrote their software to work properly. >> > > Which is a valid critique of *any* anti-spam measure. It's an arms race > we're in, and if there's a measure that buys us a few months dominance, > then it's worth implementing. Perhaps it'll even have the side effect of > causing other MTA authors to fix buggy products, which would be no bad > thing. > >
Speaking of buggy MTAs QMail is really bizzare. If it sees a 4xx error on the lowest numbered MX it assumes that all your servers will return 4xx and won't retry. It will only retry on a higher numbered MX if the lowest has the port closed. And they think that's a feature. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
