On Thursday 02 March 2006 09:03, you wrote:
Really? So when the box goes down, just let the mail bounce?
Mail will not start to bounce the moment your box goes down. SMTP was designed
to be reliable.
How would it break spamassassin (which is what I use)?
It doesn't.
---
Lars Hansson
On Thursday 02 March 2006 15:14, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
If the client can't find any DNS information on the destination, it
tends to bounce. At least in all non-broken MTAs. Try it. Send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and see what happens.
This was 1/2 his argument. No DNS info means no DNS
Rod == Rod Whitworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rod As a result spammers target secondaries strongly in preference to
Rod primaries. As a project I listed a secondary for a server I support
Rod using an alias on the same machine. All of the mail sent to the
Rod secondary address (unless I missed
NO - it does not! Well, not unless the sending MTA is broken. To quote
from Postfix documentation referring to not getting an MX record from
DNS:
By default, the Postfix SMTP client defers delivery and tries again
after some delay. This behavior is required by the SMTP standard.
Yes it
$ host -t mx stonehenge.com
stonehenge.com mail is handled by 666 spamtrap.stonehenge.com.
stonehenge.com mail is handled by 5 blue.stonehenge.com.
Any mail delivered to spamtrap gets the following response:
450 Violation of RFC2821 Section 5 Paragraph 8 correlates highly with
spamming
On 2006/03/02 08:16, Graham Toal wrote:
Any mail delivered to spamtrap gets the following response:
450 Violation of RFC2821 Section 5 Paragraph 8 correlates highly with
spamming and is therefore rejected.
Ouch! You're a brave one. That's fine until your first big network outage
Graham == Graham Toal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Ouch! You're a brave one. That's fine until your first big network
outage :-)
Graham Oh wait - I bet they're both on the same net segment, right? You
wouldn't
Graham dare do that with a machine elsewhere on the net!
No, they're both on
On 02/03/06, Graham Toal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I do believe in Backup MX, as long as it does proper
relay checking. It's nice if it also does spam checking, but
not critical because your primary MX will still do that. However
Do you know just how disturbing it is to receive
On 02/03/06, Graham Toal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ host -t mx stonehenge.com
stonehenge.com mail is handled by 666 spamtrap.stonehenge.com.
stonehenge.com mail is handled by 5 blue.stonehenge.com.
Any mail delivered to spamtrap gets the following response:
450 Violation of RFC2821
On 02 Mar 2006 06:54:45 -0800 merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L.
Schwartz) wrote:
I hate greylisting. It hurts legit mail to solve the spam problem.
And I don't need it, based on the amount of spam I can kill with this
(and a few other tricks described in the referenced paper).
If you used spamd
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:38:09PM +, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Graham,
You seem to have some contradicting views on the matter. What is the
difference between greylisting and the aforementioned spamtrapping
approach? Isn't it essentially a variation of the very same thing,
namely
On 02/03/06, David Terrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:38:09PM +, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Graham,
You seem to have some contradicting views on the matter. What is the
difference between greylisting and the aforementioned spamtrapping
approach? Isn't it
Wouldn't a even simpler solution be to define a
high MX record to a dummy address that would never
answer. The spammers were going to retry, they would
anyway and a real server would retry for sure.
Constantine == Constantine A Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Constantine Correction: this very neat trick is by Randal L. Schwartz; Graham
Constantine was the one opposing it in this thread. :-)
Constantine Here are some results of 'You Had Me at HELO':
Constantine
Peter == Peter Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Wouldn't a even simpler solution be to define a
Peter high MX record to a dummy address that would never
Peter answer. The spammers were going to retry, they would
Peter anyway and a real server would retry for sure.
My understanding is that
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:14:29 -0700, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:16:59 -0600, Graham Toal wrote:
If your DNS is on the same net as the mailer, its down too. Senders
soon get no result at all when they look you up, with the
Hello. Basic sendmail question.
I want to set up a backup mx server to field incoming mail when my
primary mail server goes down. I understand how to do this from a DNS
standpoint, but what I don't know is what should be in my
sendmail.mc/sendmail.cf file for this.
Is there anything special I
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 07:19:18PM -0500, Chris wrote:
Hello. Basic sendmail question.
I want to set up a backup mx server to field incoming mail when my
primary mail server goes down. I understand how to do this from a DNS
standpoint, but what I don't know is what should be in my
Really? So when the box goes down, just let the mail bounce?
How would it break spamassassin (which is what I use)?
David Terrell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 07:19:18PM -0500, Chris wrote:
Hello. Basic sendmail question.
I want to set up a backup mx server to field incoming mail
Backup MX is a relic and a legacy. It breaks almost all spam filters.
Modern mail infrastructure doesn't need it, except in rare cases.
why so? I use one here at work with great success. I use Postfix so
I'm no use to the OP. I don't have any problems with double bounces,
and my spam tools
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006, Chris wrote:
I want to set up a backup mx server to field incoming mail when my
primary mail server goes down. I understand how to do this from a DNS
standpoint, but what I don't know is what should be in my
sendmail.mc/sendmail.cf file for this.
Is there anything
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:49:44 -0800, Claus Assmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006, Chris wrote:
I want to set up a backup mx server to field incoming mail when my
primary mail server goes down. I understand how to do this from a DNS
standpoint, but what I don't know is what should be in my
Backup MX is a relic and a legacy. It breaks almost all spam filters.
Modern mail infrastructure doesn't need it, except in rare cases.
me thinks this is spreading FUD. define modern mail infrastructure. perhaps
the origin of the FUD is the M$ visual studio .net overexposure?
On Thursday 02 March 2006 10:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
me thinks this is spreading FUD. define modern mail infrastructure.
perhaps the origin of the FUD is the M$ visual studio .net overexposure?
No, it's not FUD. The large majorityt domains dont need backup MX's. Mail wont
bounce just
Although I know where David is coming from with this slightly
contentious comment, he's wrong. The argument is that most
senders will do their own back-off, and the hassle of setting
up a *good* backup MX server is so high that the benefit scarcely
justifies it.
However where he is wrong
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:16:59PM -0600, Graham Toal wrote:
Personally I do believe in Backup MX, as long as it does proper
relay checking. It's nice if it also does spam checking, but
not critical because your primary MX will still do that. However
if you do spam checking *and rejection*
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:16:59 -0600, Graham Toal wrote:
Although I know where David is coming from with this slightly
contentious comment, he's wrong. The argument is that most
senders will do their own back-off, and the hassle of setting
up a *good* backup MX server is so high that the benefit
On Thursday, March 2, Rod.. Whitworth wrote:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:16:59 -0600, Graham Toal wrote:
If your DNS is on the same net as the mailer, its down too. Senders
soon get no result at all when they look you up, with the result that
mail *bounces* (unknown address) rather than
28 matches
Mail list logo
