From: Craig Sanders (castaz.net.au)
Date: Tue May 23 2006 - 05:22:12 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 05:22:04PM +0200, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Sonntag, 21. Mai 2006 11:36 Craig Sanders wrote:
> > even better, have a lowest priority MX pointing to a host that isn't
> > even listening on port 25 (or which responds to ALL smtp requests
> > with "450 try again later").
>
> You mean highest priority MX, I guess?

highest numerical value, lowest priority.

MX servers are tried in order of ascending numerical value, so the
higher the number, the lower the priority.

i.e. "MX 10 foo.example.com" is tried before "MX 20 bar.example.com".

except for spamware and viruses, of course, which try the lowest
priority first as an attempt to get around anti-spam rules.

setting up a bogus lowest priority MX record (pointing at an unused IP
address in my /24 network) has almost halved the number of spam delivery
attempts my home server gets per week - from around 30,000 to around
17,000.

craig

--
craig sanders <castaz.net.au> (part time cyborg)

my postfix scripts are at http://taz.net.au/postfix/scripts/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]