NAT.
-Adam
On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:49 AM, Stefan Wollny wrote:
Adam,
could you please point to where to find more information on why pop-
before-smtp is highly insecure? Or provide here a little bit of
background information?
It would be really appreciated.
Thank you!
-STEFAN
-----Urspr|ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Adam Jacob Muller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gesendet: 27.02.08 05:57:42
An: Juan Miscaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Cameron Schaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
Betreff: Re: pop-before-smtp and spamd
pop-before-smtp is highly insecure.
Use SMTP auth.
-Adam
On Feb 26, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Juan Miscaro wrote:
--- Cameron Schaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Juan Miscaro wrote:
Are there standard solutions for dealing with the obvious
collision
between pop-before-smtp and spamd (in greylisting mode)? I know
many
will say to use SMTP AUTH but right now I want to try to get my
current
setup to work. My first idea was to hack the pop-before-smtp Perl
script to have the thing (daemon) add connecting/authenticating
sender
IPs to a pf whitelist table. I'm running OpenBSD 4.2 (stable)
with
Postfix 2.5.
Why not use port 587 to send mail, instead of port 25, and only
allow
SMTP Auth from this port.
Right now I'm talking about using pop-before-smtp.
/juan
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
--
Mit freundlichen Gr|_en,
STEFAN WOLLNY
---
Regulatory Reporting Consultancy
Tel.: +49 (0) 177 655 7875
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
