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

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.

It's *way* past time to declare open season...

            regards, tom lane