Well, I'll believe my own eyes. I've seen it happen. Don't come cryin' to me when you get nailed by the spammers.
> Hey there always will be people that don't like POP3. > > I perfectly understand how Exchange works by the way. I also perfectly > understand SMTP. Believe me, most SMTP servers out there (Exchange, > iMAIL, SendMail, etc.) accept Anonymous connections. It does not meant > that they relay mail for Anonymous connections. > > Also trust me, unless you have misconfigured something on your Exchange > server, Exchange will not relay mail from an anonymous source. But it > will accept ***inbound*** mail from an anonymous source because that's > what it is supposed to do, being an RFC compliant SMTP server et all. > > Sincerely, > > Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP > Systems Engineer > Messaging and Collaboration > Spherion > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail > > Yes, you were lucky. I have seen this exact scenario happen a couple > times > now. Fydora or whoever apparently did not understand this scenario but > it > is a fairly common scenario in small office environments with people on > the road connecting their laptops to hotel networks and the like. Yes, > OWA > is available, but there are lots of people in this world that are always > going to hate something like OWA. OWA in 2003 is pretty sweet, I must > say, > but there will always be people that don't like. > > > It's been a while since I've supported POP3 clients on Exchange (5.5) > but, > > as I recall, I had no issues with anonymous relaying. I believe that > > Exchange 5.5 allowed anonymous SMTP inbound connections (that is, > > connections for mail to be delivered locally) and would allow relaying > by > > authenticated users only. > >=20 > > Or maybe I was just luckily that the spammers different find this > server? > >=20 > > Aaron > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:30 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail > >=20 > >=20 > > While I am not sure that the "Greg" in this post was directed at me or > > whether this is some new form of abuse and sarcasm, it is pretty much > > irrelevant as I do have some things to say on this issue. > >=20 > > The biggest problem that I have had with Exchange on the outside of > the SMTP > > mail chain is anti-spam in a small office environment. It is not that > > anti-spam functionality does not exist in Exchange, but it is in its > native > > implementation. The issue actually revolves around POP3 users. For > your > > Exchange server to serve as the end-point for SMTP connections from > > anywhere, you generally have to turn on Anonymous Authentication. This > > allows any SMTP server to connect to yours to send email. Now, let's > say you > > have POP3 users that might be connecting from anywhere they please on > just > > about anyone's network. To allow these people to send email, you have > to > > generally turn go into Relay Restrictions and turn on "Allow all > computers > > which successfully authenticate to relay..." The problem with this is > that > > Anonymous Authentication is also on, so guess what? Spammers can > anonymously > > authenticate and relay spam, because, apparently in the Microsoft > world > > Anonymous Authentication is just as good as any other Authentication. > Oh > > well. And yes, you can turn this checkbox off and set up specific > computers, > > but if they are POP3 clients connecting from anywhere, you are hosed > there > > and if you set up this by domain, you have a whole other set of > problems, > > not the least of which is that this forces a reverse DNS lookup. > >=20 > > What really needs to happen with this is that Microsoft needs to > simply add > > a checkbox that says something along the lines of "Anonymous > Authentication > > can only send inbound messages and not relay." But, I guess since I am > not > > an MVP the likelihood of this happening is close to zero. > >=20 > > In terms of speed, I do not have hard numbers, but if you buddy is > making > > rash statements like you indicate, he or she does not either. Tell > your > > buddy to show you the proof or jump off a pier. You may want to be a > little > > more PC. I have only seen an Exchange server's SMTP mail engine under > duress > > when a spammer was involved and we are talking ungodly amounts of > messages > > with lots of failures and retries. > >=20 > > In terms of having Exchange exposed to the outside world, you can > secure it, > > put it in a DMZ and make it a front-end server. Again, the main issue > I have > > is with anti-spam in specific situations but if you don't have to > worry > > about POP3 users or have an extra box to point POP3 users to, then > you're > > good to go. > >=20 > > Finally, I will point out that *technically* you do not even need > Exchange > > as the SMTP engine is built into Windows 2000/2003 and I have played > around > > with using this to serve as a host to forward SMTP mail into my > Exchange > > environment. It's been awhile since I really sat down with it, but if > memory > > serves it worked just fine. > >=20 > > > > Greg, would you please help with this discussion on > SendMail....Your > > > > input will be highly regarded....Thanks > > >=20 > > > Tell him Postfix is more secure... :P > > > >=20 > > > > Personally, I like to put another server at the edge for SMTP that > > > > > is NOT Exchange when I can... > > > >=20 > > > > As far as who's faster at processing... Who cares, can Sendmail > do > > > > calendaring, public folders, etc? > > > >=20 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Sean Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:20 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail > > > >=20 > > > > Good Morning All, > > > >=20 > > > > I have a Unix/Linux admin that is just wearing me out with regards > > > > > to Exchanging being 3rd rate. Given all of the variables > including > > > > memory, processors, etc. How much mail traffic can Exchange > process > > > > in an hour/day and what is the advantage if any of putting > SendMail > > > > in front of Exchange? > > > >=20 > > > > His last statement was that SendMail can process more mail in one=20 > > > > minute than Exchagne can process in a day. > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks, > > > >=20 > > > > Sean > > > >=20 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Web Interface:=20 > > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mo > > > > de=3D&lang > > > > =3Denglish > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >=20 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mode=3D= > & > lang > > =3Denglish > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchange&text_mode=3D= > & > lang=3Denglish > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
