On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 11:04 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I'd recommend not having a secondary MX at all unless it is equipped
> to reject invalid users and spam in all the same ways as your primary.
> Otherwise it accept junk that your primary rejects and then you are
> obligated to send a bounce message which is always a bad thing - you
> want the authoritative receiver to reject at the smtp level instead of
> accepting at all. There's a whole category of spam where the real
> target is the apparent sender where a bounce will go. Also anything
> sending valid mail should be prepared to queue and retry on temporary
> failures just as well as your own secondary would.
On some domains I have 3 MXs - primary, secondary and tertiary - all
share exactly the same coding, configuration and reporting. Absolutely
no sense is weakening security for any MX although some spammers think
the highest numbered MX is the weakest !
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
