Hi troll,
At 21:39 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello Erwin,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 7:37:15 PM, you wrote:
EH Dr. Erwin Hoffmann | FEHCom | http://www.fehcom.de/
EH Wiener Weg 8, 50858 Cologne | T: +49 221 484 4923 | F: ...24
To be rude and without respect, this was the speciality of Your
Hello blist,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 2:00:08 AM, you wrote:
b I am installing vchkpw + SMTP AUTH + qmail. I have installed qmail with
b this patch:
bqmail-smtpd-auth-0.31 from
b http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
b Here is my run tcpserver script for qmail-smtpd:
b exec
On Friday, May 21, 2004 5:41 AM, DEBO Jurgen E. G. wrote:
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS
security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your
e-mailadress and Your password of Your mailbox over the internet.
Are you insinuating that this is
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 3:47:18 PM, you wrote:
JK On Friday, May 21, 2004 5:41 AM, DEBO Jurgen E. G. wrote:
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS
security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your
e-mailadress and Your password of
On Thursday 20 May 2004 09:24 pm, Brooks Roy wrote:
I have put in the patch as described in the contrib README and changed
it to be /bin/checkpassword instead of vchkpw and I still have the same
senario.
/bin/checkpassword generally needs to be run as root to authenticate users.
More than
On Friday 21 May 2004 09:11 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS
security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your
e-mailadress and Your password of Your mailbox over the internet.
JKister Are you insinuating
Hello Erwin,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At 11:41 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello blist,
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS
security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent Your
e-mailadress and Your password of Your
On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EH This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type plain and login.
EH With CRAM-MD5 its quite save.
Yes, it's 'quite' safe, but You still reveal Your e-mailadress.
If there are many hops between Your workstation and the smtpserver,
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:20:40 PM, you wrote:
JK On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EH This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type plain and login.
EH With CRAM-MD5 its quite save.
Yes, it's 'quite' safe, but You still reveal Your e-mailadress.
If
Hi,
At 17:21 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello Erwin,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At 11:41 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello blist,
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it LESS
security as SMTP after POP, because with SMTP-Auth, You sent
Title: Re: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:20:40 PM, you wrote:
JK On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EH This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type plain and login.
EH With CRAM-MD5 its quite save
Hello Nick,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 8:02:19 PM, you wrote:
NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:20:40 PM, you wrote:
JK On Friday 21 May 2004 10:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
EH This is only true for SMTP Authentication of type plain and login.
EH With
Hello Erwin,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 7:37:15 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At 17:21 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello Erwin,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At 11:41 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
Hello blist,
In the OLD days, people were happy with SMTP-Auth. I consider it
Hello Patrick,
Friday, May 21, 2004, 9:34:30 PM, you wrote:
PD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PD Hello Erwin,
PD Friday, May 21, 2004, 7:37:15 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At 17:21 21.05.04 +0200, you wrote:
PD Hello Erwin,
PD Friday, May 21, 2004, 5:14:30 PM, you wrote:
EH Hi,
EH At
PD Ahhh...yes! A flame war...always nice :)
I quote from the one who has bringing 'the gas': EH You are joking, troll
Well, I did't start. This list is to help people. It's not about to be picky
or to be arrogant, if someone share another view, he has the right to put his vision
forward and to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brooks Roy wrote:
I do not have an open relay. I am trying to setup SMTP Auth. It is not
working.. When users try to auth, it just keeps asking for username
password over and over. Never sends.
How are they authentication? with [EMAIL
NH X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)
NH Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
NH boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C43F70.5399BB8C
NH X-Spam-Score: -98.048 Required 6
NH X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.37
NH Subject: Re: Re[2]: [vchkpw] SMTP Auth HOWTO?
NH X-Fetchmail-Warning: recipient
I am installing vchkpw + SMTP AUTH + qmail. I have installed qmail with
this patch:
qmail-smtpd-auth-0.31 from
http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
Here is my run tcpserver script for qmail-smtpd:
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 1000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -R
On Thursday 20 May 2004 07:00 pm, blist wrote:
I am installing vchkpw + SMTP AUTH + qmail. I have installed qmail with
this patch:
qmail-smtpd-auth-0.31 from
http://members.elysium.pl/brush/qmail-smtpd-auth/
Here is my run tcpserver script for qmail-smtpd:
exec
Jeremy,
QMAILDUID = vpopmail
I know if i take out the domain its open :(.. That is the only thing so
far that works.. I am at loss what I did wrong. Been googling all night :)
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 07:00 pm, blist wrote:
I am installing vchkpw + SMTP AUTH + qmail.
The patch you are using is incredibly old.
You should consider auth-jms1.4a.patch from
http://www.jms1.net/qmail/auth-jms1.4a.patch
If that link is broken, google on auth-jms1.4a.patch and look at the
cached version.
You might also consider the qmail-requireauth.patch that allows you to
set
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
On Thursday 20 May 2004 07:00 pm, blist wrote:
Here is my run tcpserver script for qmail-smtpd:
exec /usr/local/bin/softlimit -m 1000 \
/usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -H -R -l $LOCAL -x \
/usr/local/vpopmail/etc/tcp.smtp.cdb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My apologies, the solution i provided *WILL* not work. Considering the
code still contains the hostname stuff.
What i suggest is you grab the patch from the vpopmail contrib
directory, it contains a copy that *will* work.
X-Istence
-BEGIN PGP
So use the patch from the vpopmail contrib directory WITHOUT the
hostname in the run script for tcpserver?
Wont this make the server an open relay?
X-Istence wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My apologies, the solution i provided *WILL* not work. Considering the
code still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brooks Roy wrote:
So use the patch from the vpopmail contrib directory WITHOUT the
hostname in the run script for tcpserver?
Wont this make the server an open relay?
No, cause that patch doesnt require a hostname on purpose, as to many
poeple
I do not have an open relay. I am trying to setup SMTP Auth. It is not
working.. When users try to auth, it just keeps asking for username
password over and over. Never sends.
X-Istence wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Brooks Roy wrote:
I have put in the patch as
26 matches
Mail list logo
