> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Maxim Khitrov
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:14 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Sendmail ignores hosts.allow
>
> however, I had a feeling that it was jail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>Do you know
> if there is a reason they chose to do it this way? Accept the
> connection, but don't allow the client to do anything with it?
If sendmail just dropped
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:37:24 -0400 "Maxim Khitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suspect sendmail is reading /etc/hosts.allow
Why would anyone expect that? /etc/hosts.allow is one of the control
files for the TCP wrapper prog
On May 22, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
Do you know if there is a reason they chose to do it this way?
Accept the
connection, but don't allow the client to do anything with it?
There is some advantage to getting enough info from attempted spam to
produce useful logging messages,
On 5/22/07, Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
> On May 22, 2007, at 10:46, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>> > # Deny sendmail to all clients (temporary)
>>> > sendmail : all : deny
> tcp wrappers must be coded into the application. The call which
> actually checks the access permissions
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean... I'm not using inetd, and
the default configuration doesn't block sendmail from all remote
hosts. The ssh server is running all by itself, same as sendmail. The
way I understand it is that as long as the server was compiled with
tcp
Doug Hardie wrote:
On May 22, 2007, at 10:46, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> # Deny sendmail to all clients (temporary)
> sendmail : all : deny
tcp wrappers must be coded into the application. The call which
actually checks the access permissions in the hosts.allow file is
hosts_access() (see man h
On May 22, 2007, at 10:46, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On 5/22/07, doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suspect sendmail is reading /etc/hosts.allow
>>
>> # Start by allowing everything (this prevent
On 5/22/07, doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suspect sendmail is reading /etc/hosts.allow
>>
>> # Start by allowing everything (this prevents the rest of the file
>> # from working, so remove
On 5/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect sendmail is reading /etc/hosts.allow
# Start by allowing everything (this prevents the rest of the file
# from working, so remove it when you need protection).
# The rules here work on a "First match wins" basis.
#ALL : ALL : all
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>> On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
> a firew
On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
>>> a firewall, since I just want to block ever
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/21/07, doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sendmail_enable="NO" means there is no sendmail daemon running. You can
>> verify
>> this via "ps -aux | grep sendmail". Remove that statement. Without a reboot
>> you
>> can start sendmail by cd /etc/mail; make start.
>>
>>
doug wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 May 2007, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
a firewall, since I just want to block everyone but the
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maxim Khitrov wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
>>> a firewall, since I just want to block everyone but the localhost from
>>> sending e-mail out. Anyway,
On 5/21/07, doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sendmail_enable="NO" means there is no sendmail daemon running. You can verify
this via "ps -aux | grep sendmail". Remove that statement. Without a reboot you
can start sendmail by cd /etc/mail; make start.
Unless you have changed the freebsd.mc file
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
> a firewall, since I just want to block everyone but the localhost from
> sending e-mail
On 5/21/07, Mikhail Goriachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
> a firewall, since I just want to block everyone but the localhost from
> sending e-mail out. Anyway, it seems that sendmail ignores th
Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to restrict access to sendmail via hosts.allow. Don't need
> a firewall, since I just want to block everyone but the localhost from
> sending e-mail out. Anyway, it seems that sendmail ignores these
> settings even though it was compiled with TCPWRAPPER
Can anyone confirm this behavior on their machine? Doing an
ldd /usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail shows:
/usr/libexec/sendmail/sendmail:
libutil.so.3 => /usr/lib/libutil.so.3 (0x280fd000)
libwrap.so.3 => /usr/lib/libwrap.so.3 (0x28106000)
libssl.so.3 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0
20 matches
Mail list logo
