search for: mxes

...definitely doesn't try backup MX which real >> servers always do even before attempt of re-delivery). > > I'm not convinced. Spam is big business and trying a 2nd MX is cheap. I stated pure observation on at least two pairs of primary - backup MX I maintain. Still I made backup MXes with greylisting as well (they are separately hit by same bad spammers scripts, at a rate about 10 times smaller than primary MXes are and absolutely independently). > >> Still, it is good >> to have the same greylisting on backup MX. And all other blows and >> whistles. >...

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: > > I stated pure observation on at least two pairs of primary - backup MX I > maintain. Still I made backup MXes with greylisting as well (they are > separately hit by same bad spammers scripts, at a rate about 10 times > smaller than primary MXes are and absolutely independently). I think that's unusual - spammers often target the secondaries as a preference on the premise that they are likely to...

...cted just > delivered to my alternate MX address and were not blocked at all. Don't use a backup MX, they are a relic of the 90s when mail servers were often times not always online. a sending mail server will generally retry the message for up to five days if your MTA is down so backup MXes are really not necessary. As you have discovered, if you do decide to use a backup MX it really needs to have exactly the same anti-spam protections as the primary MX, but most backup MXes don't and spammers know this. In fact many spammers will ignore the primary MX all together and push...

Hi all, For some reason, I didn't go to http://wiki2.dovecot.org/NFS until now, and I'm starting to get worried ... The plan was to have multple servers (MXes) receiving mail, and delivering via LMTP to multiple backend dovecot servers (with amavis in front of dovecot; LMTP both sides). Then we'd have multiple servers for clients to use IMAP or POP3. This is more or less how the system already works, except with Courier IMAP, and postfix on the...

On Sun, Jun 07, 2020 at 05:53:28AM -0700, John Pierce wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 2:47 AM Nicolas Kovacs <info at microlinux.fr> wrote: > > > .... > > My aim is simply to eliminate as much spam as possible (that is, before > > adding > > SpamAssassin) while keeping false positives to a minimum. > > > > The one thing that stopped the most spam on

On Fri, February 13, 2015 11:04 am, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Ken Smith <kens at kensnet.org> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I'm just wanting to check that my understanding of the settings is >> correct >> as my web searches are finding a lot of dated information. >> >> If I want a Centos 6 sendmail system act as the

Hello, I have an idea, is this a good list for it? I hope it won't be offtopic. So... it would be nice, if you change the host resolver code to this: it should lookup MX records like mail transport agents, but only if A record for host doesn't present. Demonstration: foo.org MX 7 bigboy.foo.org bigboy.foo.org A 1.2.3.4 west.foo.org MX 1 mail.fooisp.net west.foo.org

...tion. >> >> If not, well... could be you are facing the same kind of problem I'm >> having here (never managed to have the service reply anything else >> than "OK" or "REJECT Unknown user"...) > > quota-status works absolutely fine, our frontend MXes defer mails for > mailboxes over quota. But when we try to send a mail to the mailbox > nevertheless through LMTP (i.e. because it was generated on a server > that doesn't check quota-status), it is deferred in LMTP in the > END-OF-DATA phase, not in RCPT TO as expected. To follow...

Hi, I'm running our local school's mail server on CentOS 7, Postfix and Dovecot. We get quite a lot of spam, so I have the following sender restrictions in my /etc/postfix/main.cf: --8<------------------------------------------------------ # Restrictions SMTP smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_unknown_helo_hostname smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unknown_sender_domain,

Hi *, I am currently in the planning stage for a "new and improved" mail system at my university. Right now, everything is on one big backend server but this is causing me increasing amounts of pain, beginning with the time a full backup takes. So naturally, I want to split this big server into smaller ones. To keep things simple, I want to pin a user to a server so I can avoid