Marc Perkel wrote:
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because there is occasionally some server doing something very weird
you might have to open up port 25 one some specific IP who is
running something really dumb. I think I've had to do this only once
or twice. But once you open
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Scheidell schrieb:
| Postini uses it for their clients.
|
| They set up 4 'real' mx records (priority 100,200,300,400) that point to
| real postini servers. They set up priority 500 that points to the
| (firewalled) smtp server of the
Marc Perkel wrote:
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Didn't qmail have a problem if it hit a 'dead' primary mx server first?
Qmail has a problem if it gets a 421 on the lowest MX. But if the
lowest MX is totally dead Qmail is fine with it.
We issue tcp-reset via iptables and have never heard
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We issue tcp-reset via iptables and have never heard of any problems.
Doing this also makes connecting servers fail out quickest, instead of
waiting to timeout.
Interesting. How do you do that?
Marc Perkel wrote:
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We issue tcp-reset via iptables and have never heard of any problems.
Doing this also makes connecting servers fail out quickest, instead
of waiting to timeout.
Interesting. How do you do that?
-A ports_deny -d de.st.i.p -p tcp -m tcp --dport 25
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX
David B Funk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because there is occasionally some server doing something very weird
you might have to open up port 25 one some specific IP who is running
something really dumb. I think I've had to do this only once or
twice. But once you open up port 25 to the
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm using Exim and I have it listening on several IP addresses. If you
aren't using Exim then you'll have to get someone to help you.
defercondition = ${if match{$interface_address}{69.50.231.160}}
You could just point it to a dead IP address which is the simple way
Mark Johnson wrote:
Marc Perkel wrote:
I'm using Exim and I have it listening on several IP addresses. If
you aren't using Exim then you'll have to get someone to help you.
defercondition = ${if match{$interface_address}{69.50.231.160}}
You could just point it to a dead IP address
Marc Perkel wrote:
Because there is occasionally some server doing something very weird you
might have to open up port 25 one some specific IP who is running
something really dumb. I think I've had to do this only once or twice.
But once you open up port 25 to the problem user you solved
Marc Perkel wrote:
David B Funk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a
I guess just customers who want a fall back in case postini goes down.
host -t mx hormel.com
hormel.com mail is handled by 100 hormel.com.mail5.psmtp.com.
hormel.com mail is handled by 200 hormel.com.mail6.psmtp.com.
hormel.com mail is handled by 300 hormel.com.mail7.psmtp.com.
hormel.com mail
mouss wrote:
Francesco Abeni wrote:
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i mean
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX
nolisting.org - longterm use has yet to yield a single
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing that.
Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just firewalled off to
most of the world. It's used as a fast lane for our internal
mouss wrote:
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing
that. Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just firewalled
off to most of the world. It's used as a fast lane
Aaron Wolfe wrote:
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest
priority. Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a
non-smtp
host as your primary
MX
nolisting.org - longterm
Richard Frovarp wrote:
mouss wrote:
Richard Frovarp wrote:
We do something like nolisting. You will lose legit mail no matter
which trick you use. So it's best if you have a method of fixing
that. Our first mx record is a real smtp server, it's just
firewalled off to most of
Bowie Bailey wrote:
I completely agree with you. I have no idea what effect our solution
is having on spam. I know that our internal mail isn't slowed down by
large influxes of spam as they can't get to the server that processes
internal mail, which was the goal of our system. I know for a
- Original Message -
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX
I can't disagree with
Let me clarify something about using bogus MX records. Let's assume the
following.
bogus0.domain.com - MX 10
real.domain.com - MX 20
backup.domain.com MX 30
bogus1.domain.com MX 40
bogus2.domain.com MX 50
The host bogus1 and bogus2 are 100% safe and effective. The bogus IPs
can be dead on
Quotes from this thread (and the nolisting site which was posted as a
response):
Michael Scheidell - Do NOT use a bogus mx as your lowest priority.
Bowie Bailey - I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp
host as your primary
MX
nolisting.org - longterm use has yet to
Marc Perkel wrote:
Let me clarify something about using bogus MX records. Let's assume
the following.
bogus0.domain.com - MX 10
real.domain.com - MX 20
backup.domain.com MX 30
bogus1.domain.com MX 40
bogus2.domain.com MX 50
The host bogus1 and bogus2 are 100% safe and effective. The bogus IPs
At 08:05 20-02-2008, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
I am interested in this technique, and have been for some time. It
seems like every discussion of it leads to a group saying you will
lose mail and a group saying you will not lose mail. Is there any
In my opinion, it may cause mail delivery problems.
Postini uses it for their clients.
They set up 4 'real' mx records (priority 100,200,300,400) that point to
real postini servers. They set up priority 500 that points to the
(firewalled) smtp server of the client. (as in firewalled to the world,
except to postini)
Works great. Spammers hitting
Michael Scheidell wrote:
Didn't qmail have a problem if it hit a 'dead' primary mx server first?
Qmail has a problem if it gets a 421 on the lowest MX. But if the lowest
MX is totally dead Qmail is fine with it.
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i mean setting up
a low priority MX record
From: Francesco Abeni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:55:59 +0100
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: [OT] Bogus MX opinions
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to
Thomas Raef ha scritto:
(...) I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of
SPAM. I don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i
mean setting up a low priority MX record which points at a non-smtp
server.
I'd like to know some first-hand experience about two questions.
Francesco Abeni wrote:
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i mean setting
up a low
Bowie Bailey ha scritto:
Francesco Abeni wrote:
(...) I'd like to implement a Bogus MX ...
I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp host as your primary
MX. There are some servers which will have a problem with that setup
and either be unable to deliver mail to you or delay the
Francesco Abeni wrote:
Bowie Bailey ha scritto:
Francesco Abeni wrote:
(...) I'd like to implement a Bogus MX ...
I would say that it is too risky to put a non-smtp host as your
primary MX. There are some servers which will have a problem with
that setup and either be unable to
-Original Message-
From: Francesco Abeni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:12 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org Spamassassin
Subject: Re: [OT] Bogus MX opinions
Something else that can be useful is using an MTA blacklist. I use
the
zen.spamhaus.org
Francesco Abeni wrote:
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i mean setting
up a low
Thomas Raef wrote:
Good morning everyone, i'm in charge of reducing SPAM at a customer
site. Already have SPAMASSASSIN, sa-update weeklyexecuted.
I'd like to implement a Bogus MX for further filtering of SPAM. I
don't know if this is the correct name, by Bogus MX i mean setting up
a low
36 matches
Mail list logo
