John D. Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
In our experience the mail which goes to 50 without trying 10 is
always spam.
Any feel for whether or not you're experiencing the same
Exchange-related brokenness as an earlier poster mentioned?
No. I've seen a lot of Exchange
-Original Message-
From: David B Funk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:10 AM
To: Michael Scheidell
Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Q. about spam directed towards highest MX Record?
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote
Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50 right?
I have to admit I've tried this, but it seems
| Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
|
| domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
| domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
|
| You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50 right?
|
| I have to admit I've tried this,
wrote:
| Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
|
| domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
| domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
|
| You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50 right?
|
| I have to admit
Matt wrote:
Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50 right?
No, I'm saying most of the mail
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:36 AM
To:
Cc: Matt; Peter H. Lemieux; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Q. about spam directed towards highest MX Record?
You have it right. Unfortunately, mail
Matt wrote:
Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50 right?
I have to admit I've tried this,
Marc Perkel wrote:
wrote:
| Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
|
| domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
| domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
|
| You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX 50
right?
You have it right. Unfortunately, mail still hits the
lowest priority
server based on my experience even when the Primary is up
and running.
Or, even better, point it at an unused IP on your network.
(don't point it at 127.0.0.1, that will get you blacklisted in the
rfc-ignorant
We tried that and had problems with some clients (the business client
not the mail client). Seems a lot of Exchange servers will try the
lowest priority MX for some reason, and then never try the highest, just
fail.
With the current setup a valid message will eventually get through.
DAve
We tried that and had problems with some clients (the business client
not the mail client). Seems a lot of Exchange servers will try the
lowest priority MX for some reason, and then never try the highest, just
fail.
With the current setup a valid message will eventually get through.
Matt wrote:
We tried that and had problems with some clients (the business client
not the mail client). Seems a lot of Exchange servers will try the
lowest priority MX for some reason, and then never try the highest, just
fail.
With the current setup a valid message will eventually get through.
| Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
|
| domain.com 1200 IN MX 10 smtp-1.domain.com
| domain.com 1200 IN MX50 smtp-2.domain.com
|
| You all are saying that most of the spam should be coming in MX
50 right?
|
| I have to admit I've
In our experience the mail which goes to 50 without trying 10 is always
spam. We kept trying to think of a way to reasonably check for this,
and allow it through if the lower MX was actually busy...
Matt wrote:
Just to clarify here You are talking about doing something like:
domain.com
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jo Rhett wrote:
In our experience the mail which goes to 50 without trying 10 is
always spam.
Any feel for whether or not you're experiencing the same
Exchange-related brokenness as an earlier poster mentioned?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZICQ#15735746
I too get a trickle of legitimate mail going to my higher-numbered server. Many are coming from the central university Exchange server. I suspect what happens is that it gets one try again later and then caches the address of the secondary for a while.
Spamassassin is *tagging* over 97% of the
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Perkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:36 AM
To:
Cc: Matt; Peter H. Lemieux; users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Re: Q. about spam directed towards highest MX
Jon Trulson wrote:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
helps in these
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's
On Fri, September 29, 2006 19:34, Jon Trulson wrote:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
plan:
3 mta, 2 as mx backup open to all, 1 mta only open to YOUR own mx backups
(firewalled)
make 2 backup mx as dns round robin with one mx record, and the
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Rob McEwen wrote:
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is,
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and forward. Greylisting really
helps in these
Rob McEwen (PowerView Systems) wrote:
Jon Trulson said:
Hehe, that is an old spammer trick... Our secondary MX is
pretty much 100% spam.
I implemented greylisting on the secondary which reduced spam
through it by about 99% :) The secondary does not do spam
scanning, it's simply store and
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is, where there is more than one MX record?)
Rob McEwen wrote:
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is, where there is more than
Also, has anyone ever seen ANY legit mail go to the highest MX record when
no mail server failure occurred?
I've seen a tiny amount-- little enough that I earlier set my primary to
dump any messages received from my tertiary MX into a quarantine folder for
my review, but since I got
Rob McEwen wrote:
(CCing Marc Perkel because I seem to recall him knowing about this)
Not that I'd ever outright block based on this one factor alone, but...
Does anyone have any stats about what percentage of spam is directed towards
the highest MX Record? (that is, where there is more than
28 matches
Mail list logo
