From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Jan 13 05:09:18 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B71CADABE for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from smtp3.irishbroadband.ie (smtp3.irishbroadband.ie [62.231.32.5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D67F317A4 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from [89.127.62.20] (helo=smtp.lan.sohara.org) by smtp3.irishbroadband.ie with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1cRu6v-0006pj-3g; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:09 +0000 Received: from [192.168.63.1] (helo=steve.lan.sohara.org) by smtp.lan.sohara.org with smtp (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1cRu7Z-000AaX-Nl; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:49 +0000 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:02 +0000 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu Subject: Re: spamassassin not lethal anymore Message-Id: <20170113050902.937e8e721168218c24cfc0d6@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <34435.128.135.52.6.1484263940.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> References: <23452361f18e06fccb64293d30f1b6eb.squirrel@webmail.harte-lyne.ca> <34435.128.135.52.6.1484263940.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.1) X-Clacks-Overhead: "GNU Terry Pratchett" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 05:09:18 -0000 On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:32:20 -0600 (CST) "Valeri Galtsev" wrote: > Question: why spammers would go to your lower priority MX instead of first > going to your primary MX? Is that because on primary and only on primary > you have greylisting? Why not to have greylisting on all MX serving your > domain then? I'm in darkness about the logic behind doing it. Many botnet spammers assume that the primary MX has the best anti-spam measures and by going through a secondary they can bypass them. So having a secondary that rejects (preferably unless the primary is down) traps these spammers. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith