Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA
Vineet Kumar wrote: > ... > > decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has > > already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to > > bypass it altogether. > > Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling > something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by > attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp > server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I'd > be surprised if there wasn't a firewall rule to enforce that policy by > disallowing outgoing connections to port 25. So tunnel a local port thru an SSH server listening to port 443 (https), and connect to your favourite SMTP server from there. Usually does the trick. Unless you have a really paranoid admin. btw, can't the dev team reconsider and *allow mutt to have SMTP capabilities* please pretty please /magnus > > Cheers, > > -- > Vineet http://www.anti-dmca.org > Unauthorized use of this .sig may constitute violation of US law. > Qba\'g gernq ba zr\! |tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M' > > >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA
* Nate Johnston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010813 05:34]: > Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530) > > > Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <10/08/01 14:51 -0500>: > > > I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running > > > Sendmail daemon for reliability reasons. I am looking for a utility > > > > Erm, how (un)reliable is sendmail? Especially newer versions (current: 8.11.5) > > of sendmail? > > My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies > that have been implemented locally. Redirecting all mail from the Unix > host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and "content" screened is a > decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has > already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to > bypass it altogether. Before you spend a lot of time and energy downloading and compiling something of your own, make sure you check whether it will work by attempting an outgoing connection to port 25 (of any reliable smtp server). If the policy is to redirect all mail to a screening host, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a firewall rule to enforce that policy by disallowing outgoing connections to port 25. Cheers, -- Vineet http://www.anti-dmca.org Unauthorized use of this .sig may constitute violation of US law. Qba\'g gernq ba zr\! |tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M' PGP signature
Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA
Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <13/08/01 07:28 -0500>: > This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges. My > impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy > of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible. Then you are better off with Masqmail / Nullmailer -- Suresh Ramasubramanian + Lumber Cartel India - mallet @ cluestick.org + Wallopus Malletus Indigenensis Carmel, New York, has an ordinance forbidding men to wear coats and trousers that don't match.
Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA
> My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies > that have been implemented locally. Redirecting all mail from the Unix > host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and "content" screened is a > decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has > already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to > bypass it altogether. Maybe your Unix people were asleep when that policy was decided? There are several commercial and semi-commercial (you always need to buy at least a virus scanner) solutions for virus scanning on Unix machines. This is better than running a virus scanner on a system that itself is prone to infections (think orthogonal). There were also a couple of bugtraq postings in the past few months about vulnerabilites in NT/2000 versions of some commercial screening software. If that system already had downtime, you have a good case for pushing into the other direction now. Sorry for the OT ;)
Re: SMTP AUTH-capable MTA
Suresh Ramasubramanian spake thus: (Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 07:51:11AM +0530) > Nate Johnston [mutt-users] <10/08/01 14:51 -0500>: > > I am running mutt, but I do not want to submit my mail to the running > > Sendmail daemon for reliability reasons. I am looking for a utility > > Erm, how (un)reliable is sendmail? Especially newer versions (current: 8.11.5) > of sendmail? My issue is not with sendmail, per se, but with a new set of policies that have been implemented locally. Redirecting all mail from the Unix host to a Windows NT machine to be virus and "content" screened is a decision I disagree with. And seeing as that screening server has already had three significant downtimes in the past month I'd like to bypass it altogether. > > that will connect to a remote mailserver using SMTP AUTH and send just > > the email I provide to it, from the command line, not running in daemon > > mode or requiring superuser priveliges. > > http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/auth.html > > 1. You don't need to run it in daemon mode at all (remove the -bd flag) > 2. Sendmail is quite secure - even if it does run setuid root. If you don't > want setuid root, go to sendmail 8.12 beta 16 (quite stable). This is a multi-user system and I do not have superuser priveliges. My impression is that compiling and installing a home-directory local copy of sendmail is an exercise best avoided if possible. --N. -- Nate Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG footprint: DEAF B505 0D84 1AEF A43F 91C5 71B3 D053 D0E1 3C05 "Nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecuna possit." -Cicero PGP signature
