Re: [Dovecot] tcp_wrappers

[Edgar Fuß]

http://dovecot.org/patches/1.1/tcp-wrappers.patch should work.
I'll attach an updated version for 1.2. Remember to run auto 
{conf,header,make} after applying.


tcp-wrappers.patch
Description: Binary data

Re: [Dovecot] tcp_wrappers

[Kenneth Porter]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:09 PM +0200 Edgar Fuß e...@math.uni-bonn.de 
wrote:



http://dovecot.org/patches/1.1/tcp-wrappers.patch should work.

I'll attach an updated version for 1.2. Remember to run
auto{conf,header,make} after applying.


Typo here (missing p):

+   i_fatal(Tried to use TCP wrapers with 
process_per_connection=no);

[Dovecot] tcp_wrappers

[listmail]

Hi,

I've just started using Dovecot (v1.1.14), and I'm noticing a lot of dictionary
attacks. I searched through the documentation and the mailing list archives
hoping to find support for tcp_wrappers (hosts.deny) support. 

I did find some suggested patches in the list from last year, but as far
as I can tell, there is no support in the released versions.

Is this implemented and undocumented, or just unimplemented? I would be
surprised to find it unimplemented in such an otherwise sophisticated project.

Thanks in advance,
--Bill

Re: [Dovecot] tcp_wrappers

[Timo Sirainen]

On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:34 -0700, listmail wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've just started using Dovecot (v1.1.14), and I'm noticing a lot of 
 dictionary
 attacks. I searched through the documentation and the mailing list archives
 hoping to find support for tcp_wrappers (hosts.deny) support. 

People seem to be using fail2ban commonly to prevent that.

 I did find some suggested patches in the list from last year, but as far
 as I can tell, there is no support in the released versions.

http://dovecot.org/patches/1.1/tcp-wrappers.patch should work.

 Is this implemented and undocumented, or just unimplemented? I would be
 surprised to find it unimplemented in such an otherwise sophisticated project.

http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2006-April/012476.html pretty much
explains why it isn't there. Now that v2.0 is in a kind of usable state,
I suppose I should finally implement it.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part