From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Sep 28 21: 4:47 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B077437B401 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CRWdog.demon.co.uk (slip-32-100-16-6.wa.us.prserv.net [32.100.16.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5031543E4A for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:04:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spadger@best.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by CRWdog.demon.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8105683; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:04:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mike Tibor Cc: MikeM , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Andy Sparrow , Heywood Jblome Subject: Re: Possible trojan since upgrade In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Tibor of "Sat, 28 Sep 2002 19:11:35 -0800." <20020928190840.L24511-100000@xena.mikey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_712530192P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:04:41 -0700 From: Andy Sparrow Message-Id: <20020929040441.8105683@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --==_Exmh_712530192P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, MikeM wrote: > > > Do you mean the MX with the higher number, rather than lower number? > > For my domain, my backup MX is priority 100, my main MX is priority 0. > > Or do I have these critters set up backwards? Nope, you're good. BTW, I seem to recall that the Cricket Liu DNS book (might be the Sendmail "Bat" book though) still advises not using an MX value of 0 for the primary, due to some (unspecified, IIRC), broken MTAs. Never seen it cause a problem myself though... > Yep--Andy means the lower priority MX host, which is the higher numbered. Heh, my original post was rather confusing. Thanks, that was exactly what I meant. > I hadn't given much thought to it, but his message makes a lot of sense. > Personally, I can think of three clients off the top of my head who don't > bother to pay much attention to backup MX hosts, but who think it's > critically important to secure they're primary. Well, there's ratware that'll hit those backup MX hosts first, usually just the highest-numbered, IIRC. Probably won't be much of an issue while there's still N zillion unsecured proxies in the world on broadband connections, or telcos with unresponsive abuse desks hosting spammers in emerging countries. Jeez, I can't even /read/ >75% of the spam I get these days, and a lot of the English slime I get is actually hosted overseas... Cheers, AS --==_Exmh_712530192P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE9lnvYPHh895bDXeQRAoB5AKC1X1vd2tixFc43Yfw2sEHnHhr5agCgn+PL Z2X7FEqsF4cuM+fK0rcDQ38= =BDWr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_712530192P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message