> For now, I have gone with a somewhat different approach. I actually
> have the primary MX listed as an IP that is a network boundary (and
> therefore flatly unusable), the advantage I see is that the connect
> attempt will fail notably faster than it would if it had to time out,
> which reduces the burden on legitimate hosts, but is still just as
> undeliverable, keeping the desired effect. I will post with further
> results as I have the opportunity to observe them.
I'm using a host that has no A record (NXDOMAIN) as the dead primary in
some of my configurations. While it applies less of a penalty, it isn't
RFC-compliant, so I'm not strongly recommending it:
RFC 2181, 10.3. MX and NS records:
This domain name must have as its value one or more address records.
It's conceivable that someone would filter on this criteria (although I
think it would be misguided, as long as there was a valid MX in the
list). Many people filter on the presence of bogons, so avoid using
these at all costs. Network boundary addresses come dangerously close to
being easily identified as invalid, so be cautious with this approach.
Wietse offered this advice in an earlier exchange:
"If you're concerned about listing a primary MX record without valid
A record, you could instead supply an IP address that immediately
returns a TCP RESET. This could be done with a packet filter rule,
or by giving a machine a second external IP address without an SMTP
listener on it."
Using a packet filter offers the opportunity for logging.
... what do you mean here? the advantage I see is that the connect...
mouss
usebsd@...
Nov 22, 2005 6:26 pm
... I'm using a host that has no A record (NXDOMAIN) as the dead primary in some of my configurations. While it applies less of a penalty, it isn't ...
Jorey Bump
list@...
Nov 22, 2005 6:40 pm
Guys, This is what I've setup: fauxmx01.plusone.com MX 10 (fake MX, non-responding <network> IP) nymeta01.plusone.com MX 20 (real MX) nymeta02.plusone.com MX...
Covington, Chris
Chris.Covington@...
Nov 22, 2005 9:59 pm
... no, this is different than GL: here, every host (legit or not) will try MX1, then if compliant, will try MX2. legit systems are thus somewhat penalized. In...
mouss
usebsd@...
Nov 23, 2005 1:20 am
... The theory behind GLing is that direct-to-MX clients won't retry, so if they time out at the primary MX or at the lowest-value MX that might be just as...
Covington, Chris
Chris.Covington@...
Nov 23, 2005 3:50 pm
... It's important to note that both methods exploit the lack of RFC-compliant behavior common to malware, albeit using completely different approaches....
Jorey Bump
list@...
Nov 23, 2005 4:51 pm
[...] ... Problem is that most low end "users"/mail administrator that handle only 3 or 4 mailboxes are mostly ignorant of the deal and the responsability ...
Xavier Beaudouin
kiwi@...
Nov 23, 2005 5:21 pm
... "most" is an understatement. ... How true. ... Instead, I've taken a different approach. I allow my customers to have ALL of my spam filtering, or NONE of...
Mark Nernberg
mark@...
Nov 23, 2005 7:09 pm
... The IP is a network boundary address. i.e., if it were a class C network (/24). the address would be x.x.x.0, rather than 1-254 or broadcast (255)....
Nathanael Hoyle
nhoyle@...
Nov 22, 2005 6:40 pm
... Oh yes it can. Your broadcast address is meaningful only for hosts on your subnet. Your broadcast address has no meaning for hosts on other subnets. Assign...
Wietse Venema
wietse@...
Nov 22, 2005 7:05 pm
... If you would please note, I used the bottom end network boundary, not the top-end broadcast address. To my understanding, this would be accurate in...
Nathanael Hoyle
nhoyle@...
Nov 22, 2005 7:09 pm
... It does not matter. The all-bits-0 (old broadcast) and all-bits-1 broadcast address have meaning only for hosts on your own subnet. The all-bits-0 (old...
Wietse Venema
wietse@...
Nov 22, 2005 7:19 pm
... - We live in CIDR. so remote client don't care. - broadcast and network addresses are valid (try a ping). so as Wietse says, packets will timeout, unless...
mouss
usebsd@...
Nov 22, 2005 7:25 pm
... The remote system has no idea how your network is subnetted. so the failure will mostly be caused by a routing error (no route to host) generated in your...