: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
|Burzin Sumariwalla
|Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 2:12 PM
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was -
|Virginia Indicts Indicts
|
|
|Does any one have comments on any of the following:
|
|http
Pete McNeil wrote:
A tip-off is that the counter to this argument is up-front in their
proposal. Specifically that they will create and manage a mechanism that
tracks the end-user's subscrbe/unsubscribe requests... I think this is a
lot like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.
I
|Pete McNeil wrote:
|
|A tip-off is that the counter to this argument is up-front in their
|proposal. Specifically that they will create and manage a mechanism
|that tracks the end-user's subscrbe/unsubscribe requests... I think
|this is a lot like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.
Does any one have comments on any of the following:
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/groupware/story/0,10801,80626,00.html
Project Lumos
http://www.camram.org
CANRAM
Burzin
At 09:01 PM 12/15/2003, you wrote:
How about some new suggestions for methods to combat the
/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Burzin Sumariwalla
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 02:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Indicts
Does any one have comments on any
Hi Darin,
For the sake or arguement, I'm assuming one keeps one's server and
up-to-date, patched, and takes prudent efforts to secure these
devices. Most people probably don't secure workstations well enough. The
server side of the equation is too complex.
I don't think you (as an
: Burzin Sumariwalla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Hi Darin,
For the sake or arguement, I'm assuming one keeps one's server and
up-to-date, patched, and takes prudent efforts
Hi Darin,
At 02:14 PM 12/15/2003, you wrote:
Hi Burzin,
I wasn't thinking from an individual standpoint, but globally, as in
cooperative efforts by all mail system providers to provide traceability and
valid sender enforcement. I certainly realize that I individually have no
control over
snip
I think what you are saying (traceability and valid sender) can be summed
up as good email server management.
/snip
Yes, I believe most of us on the list do this. The point is bringing more
awareness to the global community to encourage all admins to do this.
snip
but as many people on the
This may be a crutch solution, but it is what we have
implemented, and our customers seem to like it.
I wrote a small port redirection program that runs on the mail server. It
listens on a specific port number, and when it receives a connection,
opens a connection on the mail server on port 25,
That sounds like a nice crutch to have available. Much better IMO
than setting up such a thing on a different server as IMail would seem
to require. Am I correct in assuming that you can still secure things
by way of SMTP AUTH without needing to accept every message coming into
that port?
]
- Original Message -
From:
Scott MacLean
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:12
AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound
Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
This may be a crutch solution, but it is what we
have implemented, and our
]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia
Indicts
This may be a crutch solution, but it is what we have implemented,
and our customers seem to like it.
I wrote a small port redirection
You just have to be careful - I set up SMTP relay for
addresses to accept connections from every IP in our group except
for the IP of the mail server itself, so that our web servers can send
mail without using SMTP AUTH. If you put the IP of the mail server in the
relay for addresses list - or
I'm not quite sure if that would work in my environment. I only
recently started moving my IMail domains over to virtual ones, and most
of them share the same IP as the Web sites that correspond to those
domains. On the other hand, I have MS SMTP set up to handle all of the
E-mail from the
Has anyone considered the trouble this causes to remote mail hosts?
First this has caused many calls from my fairly small customer base
whenever someone starts all of a sudden blocking port 25. Secondly, it
limits my capabilities as I can no longer handle their outgoing E-mail.
Third, this
business customer.
David Daniels
System administrator
Starfish Internet Service
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Bramble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Dynamic IP's is exactly where it should be done, that's where most of the
spam comes from. As far as serving your customers goes it's easy
provided SMTP transport
until Verizon's move.
-Dave Doherty
Skywaves, Inc.
- Original Message -
From: David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Outbound Port 25, was - Virginia Indicts
Dynamic IP's
Dave Doherty wrote:
Matt, I went through a lot of the same arguments with my StarPower
customers. Once they understand that security and spam control requires that
they use StarPower's SMTP service, they are very cooperative and happy to
make the adjustments. We are fanatical about customer
20 matches
Mail list logo
