grarpamp wrote:
> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
> >
> > Zero really is reserved, as mentioned on that list, and has been
> > assigned some special meaning under certain circumstances, so it really
> > is not valid for SMTP (or any oth
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 06:18:53 -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> bad quote
> msmtp.texi:555:@item --proxy-port=[@var{number}"
Fixed, thanks!
Martin
--
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
bad quote
msmtp.texi:555:@item --proxy-port=[@var{number}"
--
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
Take c
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 06:56:07 +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> Then maybe the best solution is simply a "How to use Tor" section in
> the documentation, with the default values ready for copy-and-paste.
I added a section "Using msmtp with Tor" in the Examples section.
Martin
---
>> > Please test.
Rev 036380a works ok so far! :-) I static compiled. I haven't yet
tested pushing ipv6 through the socks5 server but will later.
When pointing libssl_CFLAGS -I and libssl_LIBS -L to some
elsewhere version, I have to also say '-lssl -lcrypto' in libssl_LIBS
too, otherwise undefine
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
>
> Zero really is reserved, as mentioned on that list, and has been
> assigned some special meaning under certain circumstances, so it really
> is not valid for SMTP (or any other typical network service
Hi!
Thanks for your feedback.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:08:04 -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Martin Lambers
> wrote:
> > OK, I pushed the patch to the git repository, complete with new
> > proxy_host and proxy_port commands and corresponding options, and
> > documentation
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Martin Lambers wrote:
> OK, I pushed the patch to the git repository, complete with new
> proxy_host and proxy_port commands and corresponding options, and
> documentation.
>
> Please test.
The docs don't say anything about which socks version is
actually supporte
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 01:05:35 +0200, Ángel González wrote:
> Martin Lambers wrote:
> > Should we add a new command "tor (on|off)" that does the following:
> > - Enforce proxy_host=127.0.0.1
> > - Enforce proxy_port=9050
> > - Enforce tls=on
> > - Enforce domain=localhost
> >
> > The first and secon
Martin Lambers wrote:
> Should we add a new command "tor (on|off)" that does the following:
> - Enforce proxy_host=127.0.0.1
> - Enforce proxy_port=9050
> - Enforce tls=on
> - Enforce domain=localhost
>
> The first and second should always have these values for Tor, right?
Those are the common va
Hi!
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:49:02 +, CustaiCo wrote:
> > I propose the attached patch, which currently uses "localhost:1080"
> > as hardcoded proxy (this can be changed later). I tested it
> > against 'ssh -D 1080 -N mys-ssh-server'.
> >
> > It is similar in functionality to your patch, but
>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:06:10 -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> > I think SOCKS5, with auth option, and with IPv6 support would be the
> > minimum requirement, which also happens to cover most users needs.
>
> Another small bit: The same types from which a
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:49:02 +, CustaiCo wrote:
> I tested the patch as well; it works just fine. My only concern is
> that it doesn't give the AI_NUMERICHOST hint when resolving the proxy
> server's address. Without that hint a malconfigured client could
> possibly attempt to do a nameserver q
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:47 AM, Martin Lambers wrote:
> It is similar in functionality to your patch, but
> - improves error diagnostics for the proxy connection
> What do you think?
I like diags because they give user a clue on the
path to their own fix and reduces support.
---
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> I think SOCKS5, with auth option, and with IPv6 support would be the
> minimum requirement, which also happens to cover most users needs.
Another small bit: The same types from which a user may choose as
their destination, it should be possible t
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Martin Lambers wrote:
> 1. Is there any need for anything except SOCKS5? It has been around for
> ages, does anybody really still need SOCKS4?
Perhaps for the latter you mean tow two of "SOCKS4"
and/or "SOCKS4a".
Of all the apps I've used, if they only supported
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Martin Lambers wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:48:32 +0200, ilf wrote:
>> The Tor Project recommends SOCKS 4a over SOCKS 5 against DNS leaks:
>> https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq#WarningsAboutSOCKSandDNSInformationLeaks
> Yes, but only if the SOCKS5 application
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:47:20AM +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> > AFAIK, SOCKS4 is totally dead. Some older systems still do SOCKS4a,
> > but it's not that common. It was already implemented so I kept it.
>
> Then let's start with SOCKS5 only, and add other variants only if
> required.
>
> > >
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:48:32 +0200, ilf wrote:
> Martin Lambers:
> > That's true if we do DNS ourselves (necessary for SOCKS4, optional
> > for SOCKS5), but we want the proxy to do it for us, especially in
> > the context of Tor usage, and then SOCKS5 is different (simpler)
> > than SOCKS4.
>
> T
Martin Lambers:
That's true if we do DNS ourselves (necessary for SOCKS4, optional for
SOCKS5), but we want the proxy to do it for us, especially in the
context of Tor usage, and then SOCKS5 is different (simpler) than
SOCKS4.
The Tor Project recommends SOCKS 4a over SOCKS 5 against DNS leak
Hi!
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 23:43:05 +, CustaiCo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:29:13PM +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I don't use a proxy myself; I have a few questions about SOCKS
> > support in general and your patch in particular:
> >
> > 1. Is there any need for anything
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:35:36 +0200, Ángel González wrote:
> Martin Lambers wrote:
> >
> > 1. Is there any need for anything except SOCKS5? It has been around
> > for ages, does anybody really still need SOCKS4?
>
> If I remember right, they are so similar that it's simple to support
> both with o
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:29:13PM +0200, Martin Lambers wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I don't use a proxy myself; I have a few questions about SOCKS support
> in general and your patch in particular:
>
> 1. Is there any need for anything except SOCKS5? It has been around for
> ages, does anybody really still
Martin Lambers wrote:
>
> 1. Is there any need for anything except SOCKS5? It has been around
> for ages, does anybody really still need SOCKS4?
If I remember right, they are so similar that it's simple to support
both with one hit.
--
Hi!
I don't use a proxy myself; I have a few questions about SOCKS support
in general and your patch in particular:
1. Is there any need for anything except SOCKS5? It has been around for
ages, does anybody really still need SOCKS4?
2. Nobody protects the SOCKS5 protocol with TLS, right?
3. Is
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Martin Lambers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:45:24 -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ángel González
>> wrote:
>> > CustaiCo wrote:
>> >> Because of how cleanly seperated the network code is from the rest
>> >> of the application, I'm fairly
My earlier thought was suggest maybe including something from
a group that is generally not known to produce said crap/cleanup
and had a universally compatible license. If that would work better?
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/nc/socks.c?rev=HEAD
http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:56:52PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:46 AM, CustaiCo wrote:
> > I have completed the work to add proxying to msmtp without any
> > dependancy on any other library. Initially I was just linking against
> > the proxychains code.
>
> socks5 seems the m
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 07:28:01PM +0200, Ángel González wrote:
> CustaiCo wrote:
> > Because of how cleanly seperated the network code is from the rest of
> > the application, I'm fairly sure that there should be no leaks, unless
> > the ssl library decides to open it's own connections for no reas
Hi!
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 14:45:24 -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ángel González
> wrote:
> > CustaiCo wrote:
> >> Because of how cleanly seperated the network code is from the rest
> >> of the application, I'm fairly sure that there should be no leaks,
> >> unless the ssl
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:46 AM, CustaiCo wrote:
> I have completed the work to add proxying to msmtp without any
> dependancy on any other library. Initially I was just linking against
> the proxychains code.
socks5 seems the most common, which this patch handles.
And proxy.c has socks4.
Though s
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ángel González wrote:
> CustaiCo wrote:
>> Because of how cleanly seperated the network code is from the rest of
>> the application, I'm fairly sure that there should be no leaks, unless
>> the ssl library decides to open it's own connections for no reason.
>
> Like
CustaiCo wrote:
> Because of how cleanly seperated the network code is from the rest of
> the application, I'm fairly sure that there should be no leaks, unless
> the ssl library decides to open it's own connections for no reason.
Like doing an OCSP check?
(although neither openssl nor gnutls see
I have completed the work to add proxying to msmtp without any
dependancy on any other library. Initially I was just linking against
the proxychains code. I thought I had the everything working then I
tried to send a message and it did not work. At that time I realized
there was basically one funct
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 09:25:33PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM, CustaiCo wrote:
> > To just yank in somebody's code and bloat the code
> > base with a bunch of proxy code seems pretty pointless.
>
> Once you exec msmtp it's in there anyways. Guess I don't
> see a probl
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:04 PM, CustaiCo wrote:
> To just yank in somebody's code and bloat the code
> base with a bunch of proxy code seems pretty pointless.
Once you exec msmtp it's in there anyways. Guess I don't
see a problem with putting the little bit of socks5 in msmtp
directly. It's not l
On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Matus:
>>Is it necessary to invoke new dependencies on third party libraries?
>
> It's better than reinvent the wheel, risk new (security) bugs etc.
Socks5 code itself is very small. Reviewing a cut/paste
to spec from OpenBSD/nc or any other compatible inclusion
wou
>On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, CustaiCo wrote:
>> I've written an patch that allows msmtp to use a socks
On 03.10.14 16:03, grarpamp wrote:
>Is it necessary to invoke new dependencies on third party libraries?
It's better than reinvent the wheel, risk new (security) bugs etc.
>Especially one
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:03:30PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, CustaiCo wrote:
> > I've written an patch that allows msmtp to use a socks
>
> Good to see someone working on this.
>
> Is it necessary to invoke new dependencies on third party libraries?
> Especially on
grarpamp:
I'm sure there are lots of users who will point it directly at Tor
127.0.0.1:9050 so they can reach submission STARTTLS 587 on the
other side.
Yes, please. Would love to do this without torsocks :)
--
ilf
Über 80 Millionen Deutsche benutzen keine Konsole. Klick dich nicht weg!
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 PM, CustaiCo wrote:
> I've written an patch that allows msmtp to use a socks
Good to see someone working on this.
Is it necessary to invoke new dependencies on third party libraries?
Especially one that hasn't been maintained since 2005?
What about simply including so
I've written an patch that allows msmtp to use a socks or html proxy. It
uses the antinat library that can be found at http://antinat.sourceforge.net
The patch is a little rough at the momement, it doesn't take into
account any of the autoconfigure scripts. You have to define HAVE_PROXY
in the conf
42 matches
Mail list logo
