On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 10:39 -0400, Steve Campbell wrote: > In my case, the secondary MX is acting as a second gateway to my primary > MX+mailstore. The primary is highly available. But because it is a published > MX, it attracks spam. The "designed" purpose of md_check_against_smtp_server > is, in some ways, being used correctly here, as it does what it should do > when you consider it is running on a gateway. It's the design of my mail > system that is not being used properly. And the distributed user base would > fix that. Unfortunately, the 'suits' won't let me fix that for now. (Maybe > I'll just do it behind their backs)
Why don't you move _both_ MX receivers to different machines, leaving your 'highly available' delivery server to serve real users while the spam fighting happens elsewhere? Then the check_against_smtp_server will work against the user base as it should and if one or the other of the MX gateways has a problem the failover will take care of it. If you are currently having enough trouble with the primary server to have noticed it, a plan with a good chance of fixing the problem should justify the extra box to the suits. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
