On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Martin Nile wrote:
> Yes I see this on a regular basis. In my case the secondary MX forwards
> to the spamassassin machine so most of it gets caught anyway. A
> quick grep of the last 2 months of spam shows that 533 out of 6057
> spams came in via my secondary MX.
I just c
> "SE" == Steve Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SE> I have SpamAssassin installed on Yoda but not SkyWalker. I'm receiving
SE> spam and it is going through SkyWalker. Has anyone ever heard of
SE> spammers purposely avoiding the higher MX value? It doesn't appear that
SE> any non-spam is
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 10:10:53AM -0700, Craig R.Hughes wrote:
> fallback". Unfortunately, the spammers have caught on to that
> now.
Well, it's also a good idea because if your backup mail server is run
by your ISP or the like, they're much less likely to block open relays
and such. Since yo
Smarter spammers who are trying to avoid Postini etc. will also
be smarter at avoiding our filters.
C
On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 09:56 AM, Martin Nile wrote:
> However it seems that a higher percentage of SPAM that slips in beneath
> spamassassin came in via the secondary MX.
-
I think this is a side effect of the way Postini (and some
others) do mail filtering for enterprises -- basically they sell
a mail forwarding service, which you create as your low-score MX
record, they scrub mail, then forward to your "real" mail
server. The sales pitch says "If our service g
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:13:38PM -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> Yes I get that all the time myself. Instead of hitting the main (lower mx)
> value, they always hit the higher MX value. Not much you can do about it
> really, since the second mail server needs to accept the mail in case the
> p
Yes I see this on a regular basis. In my case the secondary MX forwards
to the spamassassin machine so most of it gets caught anyway. A
quick grep of the last 2 months of spam shows that 533 out of 6057
spams came in via my secondary MX.
However it seems that a higher percentage of SPAM that s
> Has anyone ever heard of spammers purposely avoiding
> the higher MX value?
I've seen them do that, as well as try and connect to the host directly
(i.e. example.com instead of mailhost1.example.com or
mailhost2.example.com).
St-
---
This
Hi,
Yes I get that all the time myself. Instead of hitting the main (lower mx)
value, they always hit the higher MX value. Not much you can do about it
really, since the second mail server needs to accept the mail in case the
primary server is down.
I've also seen my primary mail server refuse
