totojepast wrote:

> I am currently testing a recently discovered antispam technique
> called "nolisting" (http://nolisting.org/,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolisting)

Since you've cross-posted this to about 8 groups, I'm going to send
out some replies (I'm limited to 5 groups) and I have to set a
follow-up group (I'm setting that to alt.spam).

The theory as mentioned here:

http://nolisting.org/

goes like this:

"It has been observed that when a domain has both a primary (high
priority, low number) and a secondary (low priority, high number) MX
record configured in DNS, overall SMTP connections will decrease when
the primary MX is unavailable. "

I believe that most theories about spam are such that when there is
more than one MTA listed in an MX record, that spammers always try
sending first (and possibly only) to the LOWEST listed MTA. The
theory being that low-order MTA's are used only for backup and chances
are they are not well fortified against spam compared with the
higher-order MTA's.

My own personal experience is this: I've been running a mail server
for a small organization since about 1998. In late 2005 I mistakenly
removed my MX record, but that had no effect on the reception of good
or legit e-mail, but zombie-spam (direct-to-mx spam) dropped by 75%.
The reason was that in the absence of an MX record, RFC's state that
the fallback is to try the A record. Our A record points to our mail
server, hence we continued to receive legit e-mail. I've been running
our server for the past 2 years in that configuration, and after the
huge drop our spam is in fact decreasing.

I don't know who operates the above-mentioned website, or if they
participate in any usenet spam-related discussions, but I think what
I've written above should be brought to their attention.