However, if some people are getting good results with these methods, has anybody tried having three MX entries with the middle one being the
I presume you do have a spam product doing a good job? Personally I am more concerned with getting the stuff blocked than reducing incoming traffic, as traffic is cheap these days. Also, spam messages are typically small, and therefore 90% of messages doesn't equate to 90% of traffic. We've got a product here doing an excellent job. 1 or 2 a month are slipping through to my inbox, and I've never had a false positive I know about. This said, I don't deal with enterprise size deployments, so therefore don't have to watch every bit of bandwidth like a hawk. Chris Curtis -----Original Message----- From: Glen Eustace [mailto:geustace(a)godzone.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2008 11:24 a.m. To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Using nolisting to reduce spam Chris Curtis wrote: live
one?
....
Doubt it would stop much in my own opinion.
Cheers B
I am not in a position to dispute the empirical evidence presented at http://nolisting.org, but it would seem to imply that there are still a large number of bots that are still just using the primary MX. My observations of the domain I have applied this to are that it is definitely stopping connections. I am not assuming that it is a silver bullet, it quite clearly is not. But with 98% of the inbound on our email servers last month being spam, any reduction in 'cr*p' would seem to be worth it, particularly as this one doesn't cost anything and is reasonably easy to implement. BUT, I am a little anxious as to whether there is a down side. Glen. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog