yeah. I've been thinking that (Postfix) is probably the better solution. But it still bugs me that fail2ban doesn't have a built-in ability to be more aggressive about cutting TCP connections which are obviously malicious.
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 10:48 AM Kenneth Porter <sh...@sewingwitch.com> wrote: > --On Monday, May 03, 2021 2:05 PM +0100 Darac Marjal > <mailingl...@darac.org.uk> wrote: > > > If sendmail can't do that (I'm struggling to find > > decent documentation for it), consider replacing sendmail with exim or > > postfix - both of which DO have this capability. > > I learned sendmail using the "bat book" from O'Reilly. (Popular publisher > of books on open source systems, with each book characterized by a notable > animal on the cover.) > > <https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/sendmail-4th-edition/9780596510299/> > > Alas, the online documentation got much harder to find when sendmail went > commercial. Some FAQs here: > > <https://www.proofpoint.com/us/sendmail/faq> > > Alas, sendmail was written at a time when the Internet was more trusting > and when software was less integrated, so authentication was bolted on as > an extra feature. I haven't found anything on rate-limiting it except as > an > anti-spam measure. > > Note that Red Hat distros switched to Postfix as the default mail server a > couple versions back but still provide sendmail as an alternative. So a > recent Fedora or CentOS system will likely be running Postfix. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fail2ban-users mailing list > Fail2ban-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fail2ban-users >
_______________________________________________ Fail2ban-users mailing list Fail2ban-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fail2ban-users
