Re: [OT] Tom's/Marc's spam filters?

Tom Lane wrote:
> jseymour@LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> But in any case,
> >> I run the same filters on my secondary server.  Both the IP and the HELO
> >> checks would be quite useless if I used an MX that wouldn't support 'em.
>
> > Yup.  If you can't employ the same anti-UCE checks on a secondary as
> > you can on a primary, dump the secondary.  Secondary MX' are of no
> > value if they just queue things up for the primary, anyway.
>
> Nowadays, yeah :-(.  Still another part of the internet that spammers
> have managed to render nonfunctional --- backup MX service used to be
> essential, but now it's better to risk losing incoming mail than to
> accept a ton of spam that didn't get filtered properly.  Just a couple
> weeks ago I was complaining to my new ISP because he'd set up a backup
> MX for sss.pgh.pa.us without asking me whether I wanted it.

I don't have any problem using a backup MX.  My sendmail rules skip over
the received line from my MX and check the host that sent to my MX.

    http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/spam/

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073