Looks like I have to enable SA in the 2nd server. It might be a spam
hole if the spam sent to 2nd first, then forcily relayed to the primary.
Thanks for all your opinions
Cheers
Joshua
martin wrote:
Joshua, C.S. Chen <cschen <at> asiaa.sinica.edu.tw> writes:
Hi folks,
I am using spamassassin 3.1.0 and it works well. Now in my institute, we
have 2 mx (mail servers) see it's dns record
myinstitute.edu.tw. 300 IN MX 100 mail2.myinstitute.edu.tw.
myinstitute.edu.tw. 300 IN MX 2 mail1.myinstitute.edu.tw.
Now in most cases, spam goes to mail1 and got dropped. This is great.
But then the spam tries to go ahead for mail2, and I did not enable
mail2 for spamassassin (because it is mainly for redundancy, and not
powerful enough). This makes mail2 extremely busy to send reply to the
spammer of user unknown or other reporting messages.
My question is, if I don't want mail2 to run spamassassin, just for
relaying messages to mail1 (as it's main purpose--redundancy), how can I
configure mail2 "NOT TO" reply the spammer for the undelivery?
Thanks in advance
Joshua C.S. Chen
Can this just hint to you?
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/OtherTricks
Fake MX Records
...
So I set my highest MX record to point to an IP address that always returns a
temporary "Come Back Later" error.
...
but you need to spend time to collect ip addresses
|
- Re: 2nd mail server problem Joshua, C.S. Chen
-
