Rob, > didn't Todd Rundgren have a song 'I hate my ISP'
Several of my hosted clients are ex-Servlets.com users; I'll leave it be at that. I've never used Servlets.com, but my clients have their reasons. > page 351 of the 3rd edition of _Practical Unix and Internet Security > says, "In general, it is not a good practice for your server to > reveal its identity in this fashion." As a practical matter, there are few hosts whose e-mail servers are obfuscated. There is really little point. It isn't as if it is hard to find out what they are using via other means. And the automated scanners just try various vulnerabilities regardless. We see that all the time with various Internet applications. As cryptographers would tell you, security by obscurity is not a particularly secure approach: http://slashdot.org/features/980720/0819202.shtml http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1126488 http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/~taver/security/secur3.html I'll leave you to browse the other 76,000+ references from Google. ;-) > The book goes on to say that Sendmail has an option to disable > [its announce string] > http://www.sendmail.org/tips/DontBlameSendmail.html) LOL The name is apt, but I don't see the feature on that page. Sendmail is a completely different beast from James. Sendmail wants privileged access, James doesn't. Sendmail has buffer overflow issues. James doesn't. Etc. James does not need or want any special permissions other than to access the ports. You can easily run James as a normal user using just: $ iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport smtp -j REDIRECT --to-ports 10025 $ iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport pop3 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 10026 and changing the ports in config.xml. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
