On Oct 26, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Elliott Clark wrote:
I too have a local mail server and I came to the conclusion that I
would really like a mx backup server. However I already spend too
much on internet services. So what I would love to do is set up
some kind of gentoo community run mx bac
On Oct 27, 2005, at 12:01 am, Elliott Clark wrote:
I too have a local mail server and I came to the conclusion that I
would really like a mx backup server. However I already spend too
much on internet services. So what I would love to do is set up some
kind of gentoo community run mx backu
John Jolet wrote:
On Monday 24 October 2005 10:37, Michael Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:29 -0400, Mark wrote:
Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of
bringing email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting
provider? My plan is to have a sep
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
kashani wrote:
1. Block mail up front.
Use greylisting as it stops spam before it enters the MTA's queue.
This keeps 90% of my spam from even entering the more resounce
intensive filtering processes.
This is a very effective filter. However, it does greatly s
kashani wrote:
1. Block mail up front.
Use greylisting as it stops spam before it enters the MTA's queue.
This keeps 90% of my spam from even entering the more resounce
intensive filtering processes.
This is a very effective filter. However, it does greatly slow down
delivery of legiti
Marshal Newrock wrote:
I'd like to disagree with a couple points on here.
First off, a secondary MX is not necessary. If an email can't get through
due to a server being down, it will be retried and get through later when
the server is up.
That is true, if the down time is short in durati
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 06:08:05PM +0100, Jonathan Wright wrote:
>
> That's fine for outgoing mail, but unless an MX record exists for the
> internal server on a domain/subdomain, it's difficult to 'direct'
> traffic from the outside in.
>
> The only other way I can think off is to test the ser
John Jolet wrote:
Two things, well several things, really. You need more than one mail server,
or you need a store-and-forward mx in case your mail server goes down.
Second, I'd make sure you put antivirus and spam guards on the mail server,
and that it's beefy enough to handle the traffic.
On Monday 24 October 2005 11:36, John Jolet wrote:
> Two things, well several things, really. You need more than one mail
> server, or you need a store-and-forward mx in case your mail server goes
> down. Second, I'd make sure you put antivirus and spam guards on the mail
> server, and that it's b
Digby Tarvin wrote:
It is easy enough to set it up and test it in parallel with your
current setup. Nothing important should be directed there till you
advertise it..
That's fine for outgoing mail, but unless an MX record exists for the
internal server on a domain/subdomain, it's difficult to
It is easy enough to set it up and test it in parallel with your
current setup. Nothing important should be directed there till you
advertise it..
I have been running a mail server on my home system ever since I got
my DSL connection at home. It is where I normally direct mailing
list traffic and
Mark wrote:
Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of
bringing email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting
provider? My plan is to have a separate server, sitting by itself in
the DMZ, so the internal LAN should remain relatively safe. The DSL
provider we us
Mark wrote:
Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of bringing
email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting provider? My
plan is to have a separate server, sitting by itself in the DMZ, so the
internal LAN should remain relatively safe. The DSL provider we use
On Monday 24 October 2005 10:37, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:29 -0400, Mark wrote:
> > Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of
> > bringing email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting
> > provider? My plan is to have a separate server, sit
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 11:29 -0400, Mark wrote:
> Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of
> bringing email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting
> provider? My plan is to have a separate server, sitting by itself in
> the DMZ, so the internal LAN should remain re
Two things, well several things, really. You need more than one mail server,
or you need a store-and-forward mx in case your mail server goes down.
Second, I'd make sure you put antivirus and spam guards on the mail server,
and that it's beefy enough to handle the traffic. A good split is to
Can anyone who has done it comment on the downside (if any) of bringing
email in-house, as opposed to continuing to pay a hosting provider? My
plan is to have a separate server, sitting by itself in the DMZ, so the
internal LAN should remain relatively safe. The DSL provider we use
will host the DN
17 matches
Mail list logo
