Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:26:27 -0800 From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thousands of ssh probes Message-ID: <86y6i5xvpo.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> In-Reply-To: <4B922207.3090404@infracaninophile.co.uk> (Matthew Seaman's message of "Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:36:07 %2B0000") References: <20100305185135.DD214106576C@hub.freebsd.org> <20100306172517.Q17960@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <4B922207.3090404@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> writes: Matthew> On the whole, I don't see the value in having a high-numbered MX to Matthew> dumbly accept, queue and forward messages like this. High-numbered MX came from a time where an internal machine could only be delivered from outside via an external gateway. If you want to deliver to internal.example.com, you tried its lowest MX first, and failing to connect, you fall back to the next MX, external.example.com. The idea is that external.example.com would then be able to see the next hop, and forward the mail. The modern recommendation is to avoid MX altogether, and rely on split-horizon DNS and SMTP delivery reattempts. But a lot of people are still stuck in the old ways. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>; Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86y6i5xvpo.fsf>