Erik Espinoza wrote:
I don't see how tcprules would fix Stephen's problem. He's basically
ticked that spammers are hitting his hidden server directly. I say
don't just hide it, firewall it.
I agree. Two different solutions to the same problem. Either reject it at
the firewall, or reject it
Erik Espinoza wrote:
A BSD admin that can take qmailtoaster and make it run on BSD can
implmenet a firewall policy using ipf.
Sure ;-D. But you're not taking into account admin laziness.
ES, port 587 is all about SMTP-AUTH, meaning that tcprules shouldn't
really matter as it's all done
Hi,
On 2/1/07, George Sweetnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used to setup port 26 for customers (before submission and didn't use smtp
auth's port) to get around isp's blocking port 25 to send (for our hosted
customers off-net). I allow relaying for friendly ip's through submission,
I still
Other than it's the standard, no.
Erik
On 2/1/07, Peter Peltonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 2/1/07, George Sweetnam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used to setup port 26 for customers (before submission and didn't use smtp
auth's port) to get around isp's blocking port 25 to send (for our
Greetings, Erik.
31 ?? 2007 ?., 6:02:20 you have wrote:
Separate tcprules file for submission port seems to me as a better
approach. It keeps administration of QT flexible and unified, and also
it is more cross-platforming way, as tcpserver works on any platform
qmail can run on, while
Alexey Loukianov wrote:
Greetings, Erik.
31 ?? 2007 ?., 6:02:20 you have wrote:
Separate tcprules file for submission port seems to me as a better
approach. It keeps administration of QT flexible and unified, and also
it is more cross-platforming way, as tcpserver works on any platform
A BSD admin that can take qmailtoaster and make it run on BSD can
implmenet a firewall policy using ipf.
I don't think having two tcp.smtp's is going to help, it doesn't seem
to solve any problems we are having.
Erik
On 1/31/07, Alexey Loukianov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings, Eric.
31
Problem: controlling/configuring smtp and submission independently is
difficult, if not impossible.
Is there are reason why there *shouldn't* be separate tcprules files? I see
no advantage to having them share the same one.
Erik Espinoza wrote:
A BSD admin that can take qmailtoaster and make it
ES, port 587 is all about SMTP-AUTH, meaning that tcprules shouldn't
really matter as it's all done through auth. Port 25 doesn't require
auth, therefore it would need independent control.
What possible scenario would we need to control port 587 independently
of port 25 and why?
This seems like
Erik Espinoza wrote:
A BSD admin that can take qmailtoaster and make it run on BSD can
implmenet a firewall policy using ipf.
Sure ;-D. But you're not taking into account admin laziness.
ES, port 587 is all about SMTP-AUTH, meaning that tcprules shouldn't
really matter as it's all done
Erik Espinoza wrote:
ES, port 587 is all about SMTP-AUTH, meaning that tcprules shouldn't
really matter as it's all done through auth. Port 25 doesn't require
auth, therefore it would need independent control.
This sounds to me like a good argument *for* separating them. The processes
are
ES, port 587 is all about SMTP-AUTH, meaning that tcprules shouldn't
really matter as it's all done through auth. Port 25 doesn't require
auth, therefore it would need independent control.
This sounds to me like a good argument *for* separating them. The processes
are inherently (naturally)
Hello List,
I have a small problem I though someone might have a solution for.
I put an anti-spam server in front of our local qmail system and this is
working pretty well, it has dropped the load on our qmail server
drastically.
The problem I’m having is spammers are sending
Stephen Spicer wrote:
Hello List,
I have a small problem I though someone might have a solution for.
I put an anti-spam server in front of our local qmail system and this is
working pretty well, it has dropped the load on our qmail server
drastically.
The problem I’m having is
Indeed, I'd run port 25 and iptables it so that only the scanning
server can connect. Then force the users to use the standard port of
587 for outgoing smtp.
Erik
On 1/30/07, Eric Shubes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Spicer wrote:
Hello List,
I have a small problem I though someone
Erik Espinoza wrote:
Indeed, I'd run port 25 and iptables it so that only the scanning
server can connect. Then force the users to use the standard port of
587 for outgoing smtp.
Separate tcprules file for submission port seems to me as a better
approach. It keeps administration of QT
Hi Alexey,
Separate tcprules file for submission port seems to me as a better
approach. It keeps administration of QT flexible and unified, and also
it is more cross-platforming way, as tcpserver works on any platform
qmail can run on, while iptables is available only on linux systems
based on
17 matches
Mail list logo
