Am 05.03.2017 um 13:09 schrieb Groach:
Its called "NOLISTING" - but does it work?
On 05.03.17 14:19, Robert Schetterer wrote:
everyone has his own spam
nobody can say whats best at your site
analyse your logs and the choose what to do best, you may follow best
practice but
Greylisting , Nolisting are very old practices
there are better ones now ,like postscreen etc
..which uses kind of greylisting (temporarily rejects new IP) and also a kind
of nolisting (rejects IPs connecting to lower MX without trying higher MX
first).
Therefore, I would not say those practices are worse than postscreen :-)
you should avoid use Greylisting , Nolisting
cause of many its disadvantages by design
however this was discussed extremly before , search list archive
to catch pro/contra
An experiment was carried out on a small throughput server. Here is the
conclusion: https://www.hmailserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=185262#p185262
Maybe the increase in spam would be different with postscreen rejecting IPs
that connect to lower MX
On 05/03/2017 06:32, Rob Gunther wrote:
mx0.example.com <http://mx0.example.com>
mx1.example.com <http://mx1.example.com>
mx2.example.com <http://mx2.example.com>
mx1 & mx2 are real servers. mx0 is nothing, it points to an IP
address that is controlled by us but there is no server.
does the mx0 has highest preference (lowest priority)?
If not, there's little point in using it - nolisting is supposed to catch
spambots trying to connect to your backup MXes, not to primaries.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
