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

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> jseymour(at)LinxNet(dot)com (Jim Seymour) writes:
[snip]
> > Secondary MX' are of no
> > value if they just queue things up for the primary, anyway.
>
> Nowadays, yeah :-(. Still another part of the internet that spammers
> have managed to render nonfunctional ---

You'll probably appreciate this:

http://linxnet.com/misc/spam/thank_spammers.html

> backup MX service used to be
> essential, but now it's better to risk losing incoming mail than to
> accept a ton of spam that didn't get filtered properly.

The truth is that most modern MTAs have a reasonable default timeout on
email queued due to failed delivery attempts, anyway. That's why I
specifically mentioned that last bit.

For a more extensive discussion of secondary MX issues see:

http://jimsun.linxnet.com/misc/postfix-anti-UCE.txt

and look for the section entitled "When There's No Point To A Secondary
MX," near the bottom. (No sense in repeating it here.)

> Just a couple
> weeks ago I was complaining to my new ISP because he'd set up a backup
> MX for sss.pgh.pa.us without asking me whether I wanted it.

My ISP for my home 'net connection did that for me right off. And it
was all right--for a while. Then the spammers started exploiting
secondary MX' on a large scale and I asked my ISP to remove that
secondary MX.

>
> It's *way* past time to declare open season...

Yeah...

--
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/