Hi Amos, I have worked with this quite a bit: TkOS hosted the secondary (next to highest priority) MX record for an Israeli government domain for a number of years. The spam behavior that we saw was that the secondary MX SMTP service that we hosted received nearly as much spam as the primary, even when the primary was functioning fully. Unfortunately I do not have a record of the data to prove this. We gradually came to the surprising conclusion that the spammers are performing "load balancing" over the MX records without regard to their priority and not in conformance with the RFC behavior. So I personally doubt that nolisting is a effective strategy for combating spam. My personal opinion is that using a heuristic on the reverse lookup of the sending relay to reject pool address connections at the negotiation phase, plus a local balcklist, and providing a rich set of whitelisting features is the way to keep the spam within reasonable bounds. Regards,
- yba On ו', 2007-12-14 at 14:26 +1100, Amos Shapira wrote: > Anyone has any thoughts on the method described here? > > http://nolisting.org/ > > As far as I followed (I just skimmed through it for now) it looks promising. > > --Amos > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
