From: Jorey Bump (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2007 - 10:44:28 EDT
wrote, at 11/01/2007 10:24 AM:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Jorey Bump wrote:
>>
>> You might want to explain what you're trying to accomplish with your
>> multiple MX records. This list is ridiculously long, and the TTLs are
>> far to high for an experiment. It's hard to look at the results of
>> this query and jump to the conclusion that Postfix is at fault:
>
> You're jumping to conclusions.
>
> 1) That's not the domain that's having problems.
I don't mean to imply that this domain is the one having problems, just
that you are engaging in some very creative DNS configuration. Perhaps
equally creative approaches are responsible for this problem.
> 3) The MX-es are there for a reason. Google "nolisting".
I don't have to Google it, I discovered Nolisting, coined the term, and
maintain the definitive documentation for it:
The first hit results in the original location, my personal web site:
http://www.joreybump.com/code/howto/nolisting.html
What you are practicing is not Nolisting. You are doing more harm than
good by listing so many MX records. Nolisting only requires a single
nonresponding primary MX. You are likely causing some malware to
generate unnecessary traffic for each MX you list.
> 4) Lots of MX-es are no excuse whatsoever for not re-trying them in the
> correct order, whether their IPs get reported back in the additional
> section or not.
Agreed, but we still need evidence from your logs that this is indeed
what's happening.
|
|
|