Re: virus scanning
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:52, Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 05:08:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > > This is easy to fix, just remove the MX record that points to gluck!
> > > > MX secondaries don't provide any benefit with the way the Internet
> > > > works today. They just cause needless bounces and administration
> > > > problems.
> > >
> > > No, they don't, when they're set up properly.
> > Setting up a secondary MX properly has been demonstrated to be beyond the
> > ability of 99.99% of all administrators.
> That's a fair point, but that doesn't mean that we have to classify d-a
> among the stupid majority; instead we can help them fix the problem.
d-a aren't stupid, but they do have other things to do with their time.
> Hey, I know all about it. Even when people don't do it entirely wrongly,
> they can still screw up. Various yahoo.tld mail servers don't reject
> invalid recipients at RCPT stage but at DATA. (I highly doubt that they
> actually take the spam data and analyze it, but it must be more fun to get
> all that extra traffic, and screw up people's Exim callouts at the same
Unless you're doing call-outs then rejecting at the DATA stage is OK. If AOL
did the same then I wouldn't be getting all those spurious bounce messages
from AOL servers.
> > If so why not just have a SMTP proxy on the MX secondary which passes all
> > data through to the primary if it's available, and sends it locally for
> > queuing otherwise?
> Ahm. That's basically what a secondary MX usually does, you know. :)
No. Secondary MX's usually receive the mail, queue it, and then send it on if
possible. They don't just open a TCP connection to the primary and pipe the
data through unchanged.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page