--On 27 February 2007 15:10:00 +0000 Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> >> Seriously though, Qmail in Plesk doesn't identify itself, so perhaps it >> does fill a good proportion of the 50% of servers that don't identify >> themselves. > > Indeed. It would be interesting if they surveyed the EHLO extensions list > or used some other techniques to at least split up the unidentified > category, even if the actual software can't be identified. > > Tony. Like this: <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/sysadmin/2007/01/05/fingerprinting-mail-servers.html>. This survey started with a list of 400,000 registered companies (rather than random IP addresses or domains), and did examine the SMTP extension lists, and error messages to get 85% identification. They found Exim in 7th place, on 5.0% of servers, MS on 7.6%. Similar surveys have been performed in the past: <http://www.falkotimme.com/projects/survey_smtp.php?id=170> Two surveys in 2004, mostly of IP addresses in Germany. Exim 5.6%, unknowns 22%. <http://cr.yp.to/surveys.html> 1996 - 2001, surveyed 1,000,000 random IP addresses. Mostly Sendmail, MS, and qmail. <http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200604/mxsurvey.html> <http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200606/mxsurvey.html> <http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.200701/mxsurvey.html> etc. I can't find an index of these surveys, but they survey all the domains that are surveyed in their web survey. <http://www.credentia.cc/research/surveys/smtp/200304/> random IP selection, 5.9% Exim in 2003 -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
