Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA

2001-08-14 Thread Magnus Stenman

Vineet Kumar wrote:
 
...

  decision I disagree with.  And seeing as that screening server has
  already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
  bypass it altogether.
 
 Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling
 something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by
 attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp
 server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I'd
 be surprised if there wasn't a firewall rule to enforce that policy by
 disallowing outgoing connections to port 25.

So tunnel a local port thru an SSH server listening to
port 443 (https), and connect to your favourite SMTP server
from there.

Usually does the trick. Unless you have a really paranoid admin.


btw,
can't the dev team reconsider and *allow mutt to have SMTP
capabilities*  please pretty please


/magnus

 
 Cheers,
 
 --
 Vineet   http://www.anti-dmca.org
 Unauthorized use of this .sig may constitute violation of US law.
 Qba\'g gernq ba zr\!  |tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'
 
   
Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature



Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA

2001-08-13 Thread Nate Johnston

Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530)

 Nate Johnston [mutt-users] 10/08/01 14:51 -0500: 
  I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running
  Sendmail daemon for reliability reasons.  I am looking for a utility
 
 Erm, how (un)reliable is sendmail?  Especially newer versions (current: 8.11.5)
 of sendmail?

My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies
that have been implemented locally.  Redirecting all mail from the Unix
host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and content screened is a
decision I disagree with.  And seeing as that screening server has
already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
bypass it altogether.
 
  that will connect to a remote mailserver using SMTP AUTH and send just
  the email I provide to it, from the command line, not running in daemon
  mode or requiring superuser priveliges.  
  
  http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/auth.html
 
  1. You don't need to run it in daemon mode at all (remove the -bd flag)
  2. Sendmail is quite secure - even if it does run setuid root.  If you don't
  want setuid root, go to sendmail 8.12 beta 16 (quite stable).

This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges.  My
impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy
of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible.

--N.

--
Nate Johnston   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG footprint: DEAF B505 0D84 1AEF A43F  91C5 71B3 D053 D0E1 3C05
Nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecuna possit.  -Cicero

 PGP signature


Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA

2001-08-13 Thread Lars Hecking

 
 My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies
 that have been implemented locally.  Redirecting all mail from the Unix
 host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and content screened is a
 decision I disagree with.  And seeing as that screening server has
 already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
 bypass it altogether.

 Maybe your Unix people were asleep when that policy was decided?
 There are several commercial and semi-commercial (you always need
 to buy at least a virus scanner) solutions for virus scanning on Unix
 machines. This is better than running a virus scanner on a system
 that itself is prone to infections (think orthogonal). There were
 also a couple of bugtraq postings in the past few months about
 vulnerabilites in NT/2000 versions of some commercial screening software.

 If that system already had downtime, you have a good case for pushing
 into the other direction now.

 Sorry for the OT ;)




Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA

2001-08-13 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

Nate Johnston [mutt-users] 13/08/01 07:28 -0500: 
 This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges.  My
 impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy
 of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible.
 
 Then you are better off with Masqmail / Nullmailer

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian + Lumber Cartel India - tinlcI
mallet @ cluestick.org + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis
Carmel, New York, has an ordinance forbidding men to wear coats and
trousers that don't match.



Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA

2001-08-13 Thread Vineet Kumar

* Nate Johnston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010813 05:34]:
 Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530)
 
  Nate Johnston [mutt-users] 10/08/01 14:51 -0500: 
   I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running
   Sendmail daemon for reliability reasons.  I am looking for a utility
  
  Erm, how (un)reliable is sendmail?  Especially newer versions (current: 8.11.5)
  of sendmail?
 
 My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies
 that have been implemented locally.  Redirecting all mail from the Unix
 host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and content screened is a
 decision I disagree with.  And seeing as that screening server has
 already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to
 bypass it altogether.

Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling
something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by
attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp
server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I'd
be surprised if there wasn't a firewall rule to enforce that policy by
disallowing outgoing connections to port 25.

Cheers,

-- 
Vineet   http://www.anti-dmca.org
Unauthorized use of this .sig may constitute violation of US law.
Qba\'g gernq ba zr\!  |tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'

 PGP signature