We are using the IMail spam tests and are generally pleased with the result and I cannot think of a situation in which our filters would result in the type of false positive deletion of mail that you are describing. To see an updated flow chart and detailed description of the tests that we use and the results that we are returning see:
http://www.summitinternetservices.com/tests.htm
At 09:12 AM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
We were using I-Mails spam blocker and decided to turn it off. The issue that we were having is that some of the AOL and overseas e-mail users were unable to send us e-mail. This resulted in a couple of e-mails being lost. It wasn't a result of I-mail but the fact that the senders host was unable to verify the e-mail address. That made it SPAM.
Now we just have the SPAM come in with the subject reading Possible Spam - and then the reason why.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 12:00 AM Subject: [IMail_Forum DIGEST]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Anti-Spam Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:52:39 +0100 Reply-To: [email protected] Brad,
Try XWall. It works as SMTP-relay with any type of SMTP server. See http://www.xwall.us.
Marius
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad Lusk Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 11:31 PM To: IMail_Forum Subject: [IMail Forum] Anti-Spam
Can anyone recommend a spam-blocker that they're actually satisfied with? I've been using Imails word and phrase list with luck for a while but it seems that the spammers have been working much harder lately... ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Pepper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IMail Forum] spamcop.net rbl Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:41:17 -0600 Reply-To: [email protected] We are using bl.spamcop.net in our anti-spam rbl. However, the messages are not actually being deleted. They continue to com through.
The spam log, for example, shows: BLACKLIST: xx.xx.xxx.xx was found on blacklist spamcopy: *:bl.spamcop.net -> Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?xx.xx.xxx.xx failed 1 lf 14 checks - deleting.
Why is it not actually deleting? Thanks!
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "E. Shanbrom \(Ipswitch\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:44:32 -0500 Reply-To: [email protected] You could set up the list as subscribers only and use the posters list for those who are not subscribers OR you could set up a rule on each list looking for the From field to have your domain in it...The 2nd method is still spoofable tho.
Eric S ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists
> Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the reply, but if I understand correctly what that would do, then > only subscribers could send email to that list? > > IOW, if I wasn't a member of a given list I couldn't send email to it? I'm > not sure that would work for us. We have several distribution lists here, > roughly one per department. If somebody in the A/R dept. wants to send an > email to everybody in the A/P dept. they can use the A/R dept. list. They > probably wouldn't be a subscriber to a list from a different dept. > > What is the point of AUTH'ing and the log message "Authenticated > [EMAIL PROTECTED], session treated as local."? If the sessions were > truly treated as local then I'd think that would solve the problem. > Instead, despite the log message to the contrary, the user sessions are > treated as remote. > > Alan Walters > Director of I.T. > Royce Medical > > P.S. > Sorry for the long delay in getting back, this has been a week from hell... > > > > From: "E. Shanbrom \(Ipswitch\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing > > LOCAL Lists > > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:40:52 -0500 > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Have you thought of setting the lists to subscribers only? > > > > Eric S > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ipswitch. Com" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:24 PM > > Subject: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists > > > > > We've recently had a surge in SPAM targeting our global All-Users List. > We > > > still need internal users to be able to access any Distribution List, > while > > > denying external senders. Thinking that's what the "Allow Remote Mail > to > > > Local Groups" checkbox was for, I unchecked it (and restarted the SMTP > > > service). Suddenly, internal users couldn't access any of the Lists. > > > > > > All internal users AUTH so I assumed they would be considered LOCAL (and > > > allowed), while external senders would be considered REMOTE (and > denied). > > > The Log even shows "Authenticated [EMAIL PROTECTED], session treated > as > > > local." for every internal user who attempts to send: > > > > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.100.6] connect 192.168.101.112 port > 1148 > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] EHLO roycemedical.com > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00000554) Authenticated > [EMAIL PROTECTED], session treated as local. > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] MAIL > FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] RCPT > TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) denied remote access to > C:\IMAIL\Groups\Daily-Sales.txt (roycemedical.com) > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] ERR roycemedical.com > invalid user <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Is there a way to allow local users access to Distribution Lists, but > deny > > > them to non-local senders? > > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "A. Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:49:56 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected]
----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 12:42 Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT?
> Len wrote: > > By using a separate box as defensive MX, you will reduce dramatically the > > number of IMail SMTP connections wasted on spam, allowing more sessions > for > > legit SMTP AUTH sessions. > > Thanks Len. We have a Barracuda Spam Firewall in front of the iMail server, > and it is doing a great job of blocking spam from hitting the iMail server. > We need a way or separate SMTP Server to use for clients' SMTP Server in > their email client when these connection problems occur though. At least > until either iMail can better handle the number of connections. As our user > base grows we will still hit this limit eventually.
Have you looked at your activity logs? What is generating all this traffic. Unless you are running a very high volume site, 50 or 55 simultaneous connections for legitimate traffic really isn't that bad. Do you still have an MX record for your IMail box. We put up a Postfix box with Len Conrad's IMGate configs earlier this year, and then removed the IMail server's MX record entirely. As far as the rest of the planet is concerned, only the Postfix box is a mail server. Otherwise, it's quite possible that worms and such are still bogging down your machine even if you some sort of anti-spam server sitting there.
-- A. Clausen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "A. Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:50:43 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected]
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 20:31 Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT?
> > I've read in the archives that it can be done with the Microsoft > > SMTP Server that's included in IIS. . . > > Yep, that was probably my note. > > > but I can't see how to import all the users/passwords. It appears > > like all the users would have to be created as Windows users. Does > > anyone know how to synchronize the users with iMail? > > Give me 2 days--this is my next free script, intended both for the > purpose you describe and to enable port 587 auth-only support on the > mailbox server itself. > > Are you using the default (Registry) database, or an ODBC datasource?
Isn't it possible to write a separate authentication module for MS-SMTP?
-- A. Clausen ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin Bilbee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:53:30 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected] The best way to handle this is to create a new domain on your server with a non resolvable domain name like example.local then create all of your lists under this domain name. then you could open the list so anyone could send to the list. What this will do is make the lists available to all hosts that can relay through your server, Authed users.
We use this technique. The only issue we have with it is if there is a user on the list without a local account then they will not be able ot reply to the list.
Kevin Bilbee
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Walters > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 6:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists > > > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for the reply, but if I understand correctly what that > would do, then > only subscribers could send email to that list? > > IOW, if I wasn't a member of a given list I couldn't send email > to it? I'm > not sure that would work for us. We have several distribution lists here, > roughly one per department. If somebody in the A/R dept. wants to send an > email to everybody in the A/P dept. they can use the A/R dept. list. They > probably wouldn't be a subscriber to a list from a different dept. > > What is the point of AUTH'ing and the log message "Authenticated > [EMAIL PROTECTED], session treated as local."? If the sessions were > truly treated as local then I'd think that would solve the problem. > Instead, despite the log message to the contrary, the user sessions are > treated as remote. > > Alan Walters > Director of I.T. > Royce Medical > > P.S. > Sorry for the long delay in getting back, this has been a week > from hell... > > > > From: "E. Shanbrom \(Ipswitch\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing > > LOCAL Lists > > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:40:52 -0500 > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Have you thought of setting the lists to subscribers only? > > > > Eric S > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ipswitch. Com" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:24 PM > > Subject: [IMail Forum] Stopping REMOTE users from accessing LOCAL Lists > > > > > We've recently had a surge in SPAM targeting our global > All-Users List. > We > > > still need internal users to be able to access any Distribution List, > while > > > denying external senders. Thinking that's what the "Allow Remote Mail > to > > > Local Groups" checkbox was for, I unchecked it (and restarted the SMTP > > > service). Suddenly, internal users couldn't access any of the Lists. > > > > > > All internal users AUTH so I assumed they would be considered > LOCAL (and > > > allowed), while external senders would be considered REMOTE (and > denied). > > > The Log even shows "Authenticated [EMAIL PROTECTED], > session treated > as > > > local." for every internal user who attempts to send: > > > > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.100.6] connect > 192.168.101.112 port > 1148 > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] EHLO roycemedical.com > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00000554) Authenticated > [EMAIL PROTECTED], session treated as local. > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] MAIL > FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] RCPT > TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) denied remote access to > C:\IMAIL\Groups\Daily-Sales.txt (roycemedical.com) > > > 12:16 09:15 SMTPD(00050394) [192.168.101.112] ERR roycemedical.com > invalid user <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Is there a way to allow local users access to Distribution Lists, but > deny > > > them to non-local senders? > > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:19:34 -0500 From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT? Reply-To: [email protected] > Isn't it possible to write a separate authentication module for > MS-SMTP?
No, not for MS SMTP alone; believe me, we've done much research on the subject in hopes of writing just that AUTH plug-in for an IMail database. There are hitches in the way SMTP event sinks are processed (in fact, one major hitch is due to an error in the MSDN docs that has never been updated with correct info) that make them suitable for just about anything in the envelope _but_ SMTP AUTH transactions.
It is indeed possible to write alternate authentication packages for the Windows platform as a whole, and these are comparatively well-documented. but IME this is some of the most advanced systems programming around, and very difficult to code safely.
It's also possible, quite simply as far as the client side goes, to use Kerberos from MS SMTP, but on the server side this requires a KDC capable of issuing tickets for credentials from either the IMail registry or ODBC; since the only open-source KDC (MIT) is *nix-based, this would be mean hacking (and running) a *nix-based KDC to use a Windows-based datasource. This is not a drop-in solution. :)
--Sandy
------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release /
Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/downloa d/release/
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/re lease/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:57:23 -0500 From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] spamcop.net rbl Reply-To: [email protected]
>The spam log, for example, shows: >BLACKLIST: xx.xx.xxx.xx was found on blacklist spamcopy: *:bl.spamcop.net -> >Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?xx.xx.xxx.xx >failed 1 lf 14 checks - deleting. > >Why is it not actually deleting? Thanks!
Is that *exactly* what it said? The grammar there is pretty bad, but "If 14 checks - deleting" suggests something like "If 14 checks, will delete" (meaning "If the E-mail fails 14 or more spam tests, it will be deleted").
-Scott --- Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers since 2000. Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver vulnerability detection. Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation.
---- This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Pepper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] spamcop.net rbl Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:21:58 -0600 Reply-To: [email protected] Sorry for the typos. Should be 1 "of" 14 tests. It should have been deleted. The spam log says it was, but the mail was in fact delivered. This happens quite often with spamcop on our mail server.
Thanks, Scott.
Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:57 PM Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] spamcop.net rbl
| | >The spam log, for example, shows: | >BLACKLIST: xx.xx.xxx.xx was found on blacklist spamcopy: *:bl.spamcop.net -> | >Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?xx.xx.xxx.xx | >failed 1 lf 14 checks - deleting. | > | >Why is it not actually deleting? Thanks! | | Is that *exactly* what it said? The grammar there is pretty bad, but "If | 14 checks - deleting" suggests something like "If 14 checks, will delete" | (meaning "If the E-mail fails 14 or more spam tests, it will be deleted"). | | -Scott | --- | Declude JunkMail: The advanced anti-spam solution for IMail mailservers | since 2000. | Declude Virus: Ultra reliable virus detection and the leader in mailserver | vulnerability detection. | Find out what you've been missing: Ask for a free 30-day evaluation. | | | ---- | This outgoing message is guaranteed to be authentic by Message Level users. | Guarantee the authenticity of your email @ http://www.messagelevel.com. | --- | [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] | | | To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html | List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ | Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "A.J. Ostman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IMail Forum] Repeat Outgoing Email Problem Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:28:35 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected] Our installation of IMAIL 8.14 HF1 is doing some funky things in the last couple weeks.
Sometimes, outgoing email is being sent to its destination 2-66 times instead of just once, despite having a successful initial delivery! I know this is a generic statement of the problem, but I am just curious if anyone else has been experiencing anything similar. Local mail is not duplicated, but outgoing email sometimes is.
Thanks,
A.J. Ostman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Travis Rabe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Repeat Outgoing Email Problem Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:00:50 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:IMail_Forum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.J. Ostman > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 4:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [IMail Forum] Repeat Outgoing Email Problem > > Our installation of IMAIL 8.14 HF1 is doing some funky things in the last > couple weeks. > > Sometimes, outgoing email is being sent to its destination 2-66 times > instead of just once, despite having a successful initial delivery! I know > this is a generic statement of the problem, but I am just curious if > anyone > else has been experiencing anything similar. Local mail is not duplicated, > but outgoing email sometimes is.
What do the logs tell you? Is it one or all servers? What type of firewall are you behind? Is this all mail, or just lists? IP'd or IP'less domains?
> > Thanks, > > A.J. Ostman > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html > List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ > Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Internet Relations" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IMail Forum] domain keys Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:12:08 -0800 Reply-To: [email protected] Is anyone using or implementing this?
http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IMail Forum] Imail and Ironmail Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:51:25 -0500 Reply-To: [email protected] This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C4E79E.D65525D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have a configuration question for anyone who knows the answer. We are installing an anti-spam appliance called Ironmail and are planning on pushing smtp traffic from our Imail server through it. I know I will now need to MX records set up, one for SMTP and the other for POP3. I guess my question is, what should I be naming the host on my mail server. We already have the host name of mail.domainname.com, can I still use this host name but add the smtp.domainname.com and the pop3.domainname.com to the host alias? The more I think about it, the more I think I am confusing my self. I'm not an email expert but I can't get that through my bosses head. HELP!
Mike Hughes
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C4E79E.D65525D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
I = have a configuration question for anyone who knows the answer. We = are installing an anti-spam appliance called Ironmail and are planning = on pushing smtp traffic from our Imail server through it. I know I = will now need to MX records set up, one for SMTP and the other for = POP3. I guess my question is, what should I be naming the host on = my mail server. We already have the host = name of mail.domainname.com, can I still use this host name but add the = smtp.domainname.com and the pop3.domainname.com to the host alias? = The more I think about it, the more I think I am confusing my = self. I'm not an email expert but I can't get that through my = bosses head. HELP!
Mike = Hughes ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C4E79E.D65525D0--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:15:44 -0700 From: Dave Riddle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [IMail Forum] "Services" like SpamLion Reply-To: [email protected] I had a client ask me today to turn on an email confirmation request service like "SpamLion" (http://www.spamlion.com/)
The "bounce" message that SpamLion sends is: ---------- An e-mail you have just sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is being held until you complete a simple one-time-only registration.
To verify you are a real person, just click on the link below: http://mail.domain.com/642302363309
Alternatively, you can use the reply button on your e-mail program to send this message back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's it! You're done! Your original message will be on its way.
This one-time registration allows you to freely send messages to any address at Our Company LLP. ------------------------ Below is the response that I sent him as to why a "service" like that is a bad idea. What say you other Mail Admins? ----------- This is something I would have to turn on at the mail server level which I would not want to do and would strongly recommend against that type of software even if it could be installed at the "client" level.
There has been much discussion among the Mail Administrator community on this type of "service". One of the big reasons against doing it is that it requires the sender to respond. That works fine if the sender is a "person" but what happens when the sender is a "service" like a bank sending a statement (for example my bank sends me an activity report every day and my Scottrade account does so every month too), a travel service (Travelocity, Priceline, Southwest Airlines, etc) sending confirmation of a reservation, notice from eBay of a winning auction, and the list of "system" generated emails goes on and on. A service like you are wanting would continue to block those emails because the sender is not a person that is capable of responding.
Another reason is that most spam uses a "spoofed" return address - meaning that the person listed as having sent it did not really do so rather their address was just "used" by the spammer. This type of system will see the innocent person whose email address was stolen getting swamped with these type of confirmation requests. All he has to do is register his frustration that he is getting killed with these type of confirmations is to reply and now all the email that is using his address will be allowed right in to your email box because it is now "trusted".
A good example of the weakness of this type of system would be that you would have my email address in your "trusted" list, but checking the last week (back to 12/13/2004) worth of spam that I have quarantined (6,175 pieces of email) on the server shows that four messages sent by a computer that is infected with a virus is using my return address as the sender. No telling how many more email messages spoofing either mine or other email addresses that you would "trust" out of the +29,000 pieces of email that failed spam checking to the point that the email was deleted without going to quarantine. --------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:26:06 -0500 From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Imail and Ironmail Reply-To: [email protected] > I have a configuration question for anyone who knows the answer. We > are installing an anti-spam appliance called Ironmail and are > planning on pushing smtp traffic from our Imail server through it.
Not just from IMail, I presume, but to IMail as well.
> I know I will now need to MX records set up, one for SMTP and the > other for POP3. . .
MX records are only for SMTP.
> I guess my question is, what should I be naming the host on my mail > server. We already have the host name of mail.domainname.com, can I > still use this host name but add the smtp.domainname.com and the > pop3.domainname.com to the host alias?
Why would you need a new host alias on your mailbox server? You set up the appliance with a given hostname. That hostname becomes your MX record, and the old one goes away. The appliance uses an internal routing hostname (such as mail.example.com), or just the IP address, to route mail to your now-protected mailbox server.
--Sandy
------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release /
Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/downloa d/release/
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/re lease/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Administrator> Subject: [IMail Forum] [MailServer Notification]To recipient: Message matched eManager setting and action was taken. Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:31:01 -0500 Reply-To: [email protected] **************** eManager Notification *****************
The following mail was blocked since it contains sensitive content.
Source mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Destination mailbox(es): [email protected] Rule/Policy: Trend Micro Anti-spam Action: Quarantine to C:\Program Files\Trend\SMCF\Quarantine\2004-12-21\21\30\Message41c8dc5d6c1.original_eml _
Recipient, Trend Micro Anti-spam has detected a sensitive e-mail.
******************* End of message ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT? Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:44:36 -0500 Reply-To: [email protected] Sandy wrote: > My target for the script is a system that is a DC, which will enable > IMail domains to be replicated into Active Directory OUs for easier > manageability. .............. and ............. > The script could alternately be written to work with a > workgroup/member SAM instead of AD, but that won't be my first > objective. Let me know how this sits with you.
Sounds great to me Sandy, thanks. We don't currently use AD but we are in the process of bringing it up now. So I am not very familiar with AD myself, but I will verify it with those working on AD. I wouldn't think that we would want to use SAM users for this purpose anyway.
Thank again,
David Weber Windows 2000 MCP
http://www.orcsweb.com/ Powerful Web Hosting Solutions #1 in Service and Support
--- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:00:04 -0500 From: Sanford Whiteman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[4]: [IMail Forum] Separate SMTP Server - Slightly OT? Reply-To: [email protected] > Sounds great to me Sandy, thanks. We don't currently use AD but we > are in the process of bringing it up now. So I am not very familiar > with AD myself, but I will verify it with those working on AD.
Okay. Just bear in mind, before your AD admins freak out, that I'm talking about making the MX a domain controller for a _separate_, otherwise empty domain. This just means that the MX's SMTP AUTH user list becomes LDAP-aware, so I can (a) program it using the LDAP API, and (b) use OUs for each domain, instead of using one big flat domain as with the SAM. Nothing's going to touch your corporate directory.
--Sandy
------------------------------------ Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SpamAssassin plugs into Declude!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/SPAMC32/download/release /
Defuse Dictionary Attacks: Turn Exchange or IMail mailboxes into IMail Aliases!
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/exchange2aliases/downloa d/release/
http://www.mailmage.com/products/software/freeutils/ldap2aliases/download/re lease/
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
