Tom Lane wrote:
> jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
I don't have any problem using a backup MX. My sendmail rules skip over
the received line from my MX and check the host that sent to my MX.
http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/spam/
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073