Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters?

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> "Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Doesn't that just force the delivering system to send the spam through your
> > secondary server?
>
> A 500-series error isn't supposed to be retried is it?

Nope. But we're talking about spammers, so all bets are off. In
fact: Spammers will frequently try the secondary (or beyond) MX in
favour of the primary, as they know that frequently secondary MX'
aren't under the target domain's control and likely will have lowered
shields.

> But in any case,
> I run the same filters on my secondary server. Both the IP and the HELO
> checks would be quite useless if I used an MX that wouldn't support 'em.

Yup. If you can't employ the same anti-UCE checks on a secondary as
you can on a primary, dump the secondary. Secondary MX' are of no
value if they just queue things up for the primary, anyway.

--
Jim Seymour | Spammers sue anti-spammers:
jseymour(at)LinxNet(dot)com | http://www.LinxNet.com/misc/spam/slapp.php
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | Please donate to the SpamCon Legal Fund:
| http://www.spamcon.org/legalfund/