[70537] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Todd Vierling)
Tue May 18 16:12:29 2004
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>,
"Jared B. Reimer" <jared@theriver.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200405181737.i4IHbMLb004770@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 18 May 2004 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
: > Quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to why anyone would wish to accept
: > and queue mail that they cannot deliver.
: Well.. you're somewhat right - *IF* the mail gateway is able to make the
: determination quickly and definitively,
That "if" is rapidly becoming a *requirement*. I invite you to participate
in SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM is you somehow feel differently.
: Traditionally, "accept and queue" was a reasonable way for a gateway
: mail relay to function (and if you think about it, it's usually the ONLY way
: for an off-site secondary MX to function).
Then make the offsite MX use a user list, or else don't use an offsite MX at
all. Sending mail exchangers will retry when the recipient servers are
down; that's mandated by SMTP. You don't need an offsite secondary MX that
has no access to a valid address list.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as of this year, where the levels of virus
bounce spam as hreached obscene levels, this is no longer a valid excuse.
: For high-volume sites, there are also firewall state issues
Then upgrade your firewall. This is certainly not a valid excuse.
--
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>
