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

jseymour(at)LinxNet(dot)com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.

Nowadays, yeah :-(. Still another part of the internet that spammers
have managed to render nonfunctional --- 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. 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.

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

regards, tom lane