> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 06:58:13PM +0200, Rene Bartsch wrote: > >> > Unless one is sufficiently motivated to use a separate Postfix instance >> > for each interface, there is little to gain from different host names >> > on different IPs. >> >> It's a try to avoid UCE but get valid mail fast. The idea is to set >> the first MX-Record of the domain to an invalid hostname, the second one >> to the first IP of Postfix and the third one to the second IP of Postfix. > > Sounds like a variant of "nolisting"... > >> My hope is spammers will give up on the first invalid MX-record while a >> correctly configured MTA will try the second MX-record and get's a temporary >> server error from Postfix-GLD and tries the third MX-record on >> which Postfix-GLD accepts the mail as it has been greylisted on the >> second MX-record/first IP, while lazy spammers will give up before. > > The usual suggestions apply. Scan the archives, but in a nutshell, avoid > forcing every legitimate client to make two tries all the time. > >> All OpenRelay-test-tools complained about the wrong hostname > > Overzealous pedantry. >
So I have something in common with that tools ;) >> and TLS doesn't like wrong hostnames either. > > Can you elaborate on this? TLS looks at names in certificates, not > at banner names... I was under the impressesion that TLS-clients check the banner -> overzealous pedantry? > I very much doubt you need the per-service "myhostname" settings. > > -- > Viktor. > > Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. > Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. > > To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit > http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: > <mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users> > > If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not > send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put > "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly. >
