Andrew Libby on 2 Jun 2006 19:30:30 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Backup MX Question

I've heard that spammers will default to the lowest priority MX in the
belief that
the anti-spam measures used at this level are not as thorough as those
at the higher
(highest) priority MX. 

If I recall correctly, one approach was to have a third MX that
basically trashes everything
as a spam subversion measure.  There may be more to the configuration
than that, but I don't

Anyone heard of this, know more about this?



Michael Bevilacqua wrote:

> Hey-
> I recently setup a new backup MX for a large volume mailhost and found
> the backup MX host queuing thousands of spam. As per the sendmail
> documentation I disabled double bounces using:
> define(`confDOUBLE_BOUNCE_ADDRESS',`')dnl
> However this doesn't solve the problem of the volume of messages that
> are stored in the mail queue. I looked around the net for some answers
> but all of the solutions were either proprietary or less than 'data'
> safe. Am I missing some obvious feature?

Andrew Libby                         

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --