Re: using MS SMTP.
I believe that Scott addressed this once before but I'll take a shot at it.
If memory serves me correctly, I think the problem with MS SMTP is that
there isn't an easy way to shim declude between the SMTP listener service
and the MTA.
Remember that in Imail the SMTP service
Of Mark E. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 6:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] MS SMTP
Re: using MS SMTP.
I believe that Scott addressed this once before but I'll take a shot at
it.
If memory serves me correctly, I think the problem with MS SMTP is that
there isn't
Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 09:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] MS SMTP
MS SMTP has what is called Event Sink hook, where a hook can be registered
and therefore called when a message is received.
John Tolmachoff
Engineer/Consultant/Owner
eServices
MS SMTP has what is called Event Sink hook, where a hook can be
registered and therefore called when a message is received.
And I have an MS SMTP event sink that calls Sniffer and SPAMC32. I'm
working on integrating Declude's SUBJECT, WARN, HOLD, and DELETE
actions (though probably
:+1 201 934-9206
http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Tolmachoff
(Lists)
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 09:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] MS SMTP
MS SMTP has what is called Event Sink
if you place these files in hold somewhere, it would be difficult to
read them.
You don't hold the files in MS' queue format, you hold them in RFC 822
raw, which then can be dropped into the pickup directory as desired.
it is impracticable to pass this information to an external
/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 02:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] MS SMTP
Andy,
Let me add my 2 cents about MS SMTP and expose some of my thought
process on related things.
We
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Personally, I have no interest in a "Declude mail server".
I certainly agree with you there! MS SMTP is so powerful that it's
amazing that MS "gives" it away.
Shh! The next thing you know it will cost $6,000 to upgrade that
as well :)
I would like to set up an SMTP mail store and forward server using
Microsoft's SMTP server that can accept email for my domains in the event
that my primary iMail server is temporarily down. I would also like to be
able to send outbound email through this secondary server because we
occasionally
Mike,
To do a backup MX right, it is best to use a server that is physically
located elsewhere and uses a different bandwidth provider. I found
another administrator to help me with these services using a combination
of MS SMTP and VamSoft's ORF. You can configure MS SMTP to gate all
E-mail
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Hoyt
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:56 PM
To: Declude.JunkMail
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] MS SMTP store and forward
I would like to set up an SMTP mail store and forward server using
Microsoft's SMTP server that can accept email for my domains
You can configure MS SMTP to gate all E-mail through a 'Smart Host',
but it won't do any address verification on the gateway and it will
appear like it is an open relay.
That's not true--whether or not address verification is done for MX
domains has nothing to do with being an open
I was careful to say that it will appear like an open relay. This
is important because I saw two different GroupWise servers attacked
in the same week because they accepted every message regardless of
domain...
Regardless of domain? That's not what happens with MS SMTP (with or
without
LDAP routing cannot be used for (and isn't designed for) that purpose.
If you're looking to integrate MS SMTP with your userbase, the best bet is ORF from
Vamsoft, which offers AD-integrated envelope rejection.
--Sandy
--
Sanford Whiteman, Chief
Sandy,
I recall checking this out once before when it was mentioned, probably
by you. Somehow I figured that you would probably be the one that would
know :)
I do see the piece about ActiveDirectory integration. I'm not an AD
expert by any means, and I'm wondering if it's plausible to
eServices For You
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 11:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.Junkmail] MS SMTP LDAP Routing
Sandy,
I recall
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 02:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.Junkmail] MS SMTP LDAP Routing
Sandy,
I recall checking this out once before when it was mentioned, probably
: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.Junkmail] MS SMTP LDAP Routing
Sandy,
I recall checking this out once before when it was mentioned, probably
by you. Somehow I figured that you would probably be the one that would
know :)
I do see the piece about ActiveDirectory integration. I'm not an AD
expert by any means
onday, February 09, 2004 02:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.Junkmail] MS SMTP LDAP Routing
Sandy,
I recall checking this out once before when it was mentioned, probably
by you. Somehow I figured that you would probably be the one that would
know :)
I do se
2) Who would be interested in a user movement to compel Ipswitch to
prevent IMail from bonding to every last IP? This way it could also
be used on the primary server and not get in the way of hosted
E-mail.
No one's saying Ipswitch has ever worked on this, but I've had MS SMTP
and IIS
I would seriously consider funding some of the development for an
IMAIL/LDAP lookup event sink as it would help my SMTP server to
disconnect on dictionary attacks.
I already use ORF to reject at the envelope using LDAP lookups and
really have no need for any other intermediary.
NJ 07458-1846Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20
(Business)Fax: +1 201 934-9206http://www.HM-Software.com/
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of MattSent: Monday, February 09, 2004 03:09
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re:
[Declude.J
Sandy,
I'm aware of your work around for this and I might even attempt to use
it at some point. I'm not comfortable though with the idea of telling
others that this is the way to go with integrating a third-party
product seeing as how it is a kludge and potentially prone to other
issues.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 03:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] [Declude.Junkmail] MS SMTP
LDAP Routing
Andy,
This is good stuff. I think it's what is neede
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
The other options that involve local text files would certainly work,
but performance under load could not exceed that of indexed LDAP
lookups.
From what I saw, ORF is loaded into memory the first time that it is
called, and while AD lookups may be efficient, it
From what I saw, ORF is loaded into memory the first time that it is
called, and while AD lookups may be efficient, it would be more
efficient and easier to implement a system where you had the plug-in
read this information from a text file into memory.
No, scanning an unindexed
I'm not comfortable though with the idea of telling others that this
is the way to go with integrating a third-party product seeing as
how it is a kludge and potentially prone to other issues.
I don't think it's prone to any other issues, since the servers that
are using it have been
Sanford Whiteman wrote:
No, scanning an unindexed text file with tens of thousands of
addresses is NOT faster than indexed LDAP lookups. Our LDAP servers
can handle millions of queries per hour.
If you index the data, you're just reinventing the wheel. LDAP is a
standard and
I think you misread me. I meant that it could be loaded into memory
along with the application. The application could index it
internally (if necessary). The idea here is that it would only be
read on the first use, or whenever there was a change in the source
text file, but
Does anyone here know if LDAP Routing in MS SMTP will allow you to
have MS SMTP to do address verification during the SMTP handshaking?
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/proddocs/standard/smtp_ldap.asp
Essentially the idea here
30 matches
Mail list logo
