[xmail] Re: SPF
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Shiloh Jennings wrote: Then do an SPF filter in Perl. You don't need to do it inside XMail. You have all the info inside the spool file XMail header. No? Good point. SpamAssassin 2.70 is going to support SPF, so we could just have SA do the SPF lookups instead of XMail. That is fair. What I am more interested in at this point is whether or not forwarding is going to work correctly with XMail. http://spf.pobox.com/emailforwarders.pdf A filter cannot rewrite the XMail part of the header (the ones before the tag MAIL-DATA). A filter could rewrite another message and send it using local delivery (or even SMTP), and return an exit code that makes XMail to drop the original message w/out bounce message. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply register throw away domains to spam from and set up SPF rules that allow all from that domain. Many spammers already strictly use throwaway domains. I really see the anti-spam war as very much like the anti-virus war, anything and everything we do is designed to fight their current tactics, they evolve as quickly as needed to get the job done, and now that there is some indication that they are working together, it can only get worse. Thanks, Chuck Frolick ArgoLink.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shiloh Jennings Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Re: SPF The spammers are not stupid, so they don't use @[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc. anymore and SPF is useless. ;( You are missing the bigger picture. Once everybody is using SPF, the spammers will have a very difficult time trying to forge anybody's email address. This will force spammers out into the open, which will make them even easier to block. The other huge advantage of SPF is in prevention of email worms. The most popular worms use forged from addresses when they send. Those worms will get stopped dead in their tracks by SPF. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply register throw away domains to spam from and set up SPF rules that allow all from that domain. Many spammers already strictly use throwaway domains. I really see the anti-spam war as very much like the anti-virus war, anything and everything we do is designed to fight their current tactics, they evolve as quickly as needed to get the job done, and now that there is some indication that they are working together, it can only get worse. I realize that spammers seem pretty relentless, but that is hardly a reason for us to thrown in the towel and let them walk all over us. If SPF forces them to buy throw away domains, that is awesome. That forces them to spend more money than they spent so far by forging from addresses in existing domains. That is a step in the right direction if you ask me. The really low rent spammers will quit at that point, because they were finally forced to buy something in order to peddle their trash. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: SPF
-Message d'origine- De : Shiloh Jennings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoy=E9 : vendredi 26 mars 2004 18:07 =C0 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : [xmail] Re: SPF =20 =20 I can see the point for worms, but spammers can simply=20 register throw away domains to spam from and set up SPF rules that allow all=20 from that domain. Many spammers already strictly use throwaway domains. I=20 really see the anti-spam war as very much like the anti-virus war, anything and everything we do is designed to fight their current tactics, they=20 evolve as quickly as needed to get the job done, and now that there is some=20 indication that they are working together, it can only get worse. =20 I realize that spammers seem pretty relentless, but that is=20 hardly a reason for us to thrown in the towel and let them walk all over us. =20 If SPF forces them to buy throw away domains, that is awesome. That forces=20 them to spend more money than they spent so far by forging from addresses=20 in existing domains. That is a step in the right direction if you ask=20 me. The really low rent spammers will quit at that point, because they were=20 finally forced to buy something in order to peddle their trash. =20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 And if a spammer need to obtain a valid address and obtain it, there is = more change to stop it faster (simply cancel they account), as abuse notifications will come back faster to the good domain admins (if they = read the claims ...) Francis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] OT: Port forwarding / redirection
I know this is OT for this list, but it does apply peripherally. Shoot if you must...:) I am using Xmail 1.17 on Windows 2000 Server. It's working just fine (except for a minor bug I introduced when modifying the code - but I'll clean that up when I migrate to 1.18). However, I have some remote users who are on networks that are blocking port 25. Now, I understand the reasons behind port 25 blocking, and I agree with them (for the most part). However, the users in question are reputable, and need to be able to send their mail through my server (rather than through the servers on the networks they are connected to). The simple answer, of course, is to set up a second SMTP listener on the machine, listening on a different port. But I don't want to have to set up a second instance of XMail (with all the attendant configuring and spam issues and whatnot), so I'm looking around to see if anyone knows of a way (either using Windows itself, or some trusted piece of software that won't run the system into the ground) to redirect connections from one port to another. For example, having a remote user connect to port 587 instead of 25, and having that connection redirected to the existing SMTP listener on port 25. I've considered using a proxy server, but I can't find any that are both trustworthy and lightweight enough for me to be comfortable with them. I'm not looking for a secure setup here - anything coming into this port will be treated just as a standard SMTP connection (meaning all the spam filtering and relay blocking of my main server will be in effect). So, SSH tunneling and such things are not really what I'm after (perhaps at some future point, for secure email services, but not now). Oh, and if at all possible, I'd like to avoid things like Cygwin - I've never had good luck with using it... Thanks for any suggestions (even if they amount to go soak your head...:) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Port forwarding / redirection
You realize that XMail can listen on more than one port for SMTP, right? Check out the -SI commandline parameter in the documentation. For example: -SI 192.168.0.1:25 -SI 192.168.0.1:2500 would set XMail to listen to port 25 and 2500 for incoming SMTP connections on 192.168.0.1 - no tunneling software, etc. needed. For the Windows version, you'll need to add this to the XMAIL_CMD_LINE value of the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\GNU\XMail\ registry key. We've been using this type of configuration for quite some time to help our remote users who are stuck with Earthlink or other ISPs that block port 25 outgoing. There you go - no muss, no fuss, no Cygwin, no SSL/SSH tunneling... hope that helps! Kirk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tracy Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] OT: Port forwarding / redirection I know this is OT for this list, but it does apply peripherally. Shoot if you must...:) I am using Xmail 1.17 on Windows 2000 Server. It's working just fine (except for a minor bug I introduced when modifying the code - but I'll clean that up when I migrate to 1.18). However, I have some remote users who are on networks that are blocking port 25. Now, I understand the reasons behind port 25 blocking, and I agree with them (for the most part). However, the users in question are reputable, and need to be able to send their mail through my server (rather than through the servers on the networks they are connected to). The simple answer, of course, is to set up a second SMTP listener on the machine, listening on a different port. But I don't want to have to set up a second instance of XMail (with all the attendant configuring and spam issues and whatnot), so I'm looking around to see if anyone knows of a way (either using Windows itself, or some trusted piece of software that won't run the system into the ground) to redirect connections from one port to another. For example, having a remote user connect to port 587 instead of 25, and having that connection redirected to the existing SMTP listener on port 25. I've considered using a proxy server, but I can't find any that are both trustworthy and lightweight enough for me to be comfortable with them. I'm not looking for a secure setup here - anything coming into this port will be treated just as a standard SMTP connection (meaning all the spam filtering and relay blocking of my main server will be in effect). So, SSH tunneling and such things are not really what I'm after (perhaps at some future point, for secure email services, but not now). Oh, and if at all possible, I'd like to avoid things like Cygwin - I've never had good luck with using it... Thanks for any suggestions (even if they amount to go soak your head...:) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Port forwarding / redirection
Actually, no, I didn't realize it could listen on multiple ports...:) That's exactly what I need! Thanks...:) At 14:51 3/26/2004, Kirk Friggstad wrote: You realize that XMail can listen on more than one port for SMTP, right? Check out the -SI commandline parameter in the documentation. For example: -SI 192.168.0.1:25 -SI 192.168.0.1:2500 would set XMail to listen to port 25 and 2500 for incoming SMTP connections on 192.168.0.1 - no tunneling software, etc. needed. For the Windows version, you'll need to add this to the XMAIL_CMD_LINE value of the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\GNU\XMail\ registry key. We've been using this type of configuration for quite some time to help our remote users who are stuck with Earthlink or other ISPs that block port 25 outgoing. There you go - no muss, no fuss, no Cygwin, no SSL/SSH tunneling... hope that helps! Kirk -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tracy Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] OT: Port forwarding / redirection I know this is OT for this list, but it does apply peripherally. Shoot if you must...:) I am using Xmail 1.17 on Windows 2000 Server. It's working just fine (except for a minor bug I introduced when modifying the code - but I'll clean that up when I migrate to 1.18). However, I have some remote users who are on networks that are blocking port 25. Now, I understand the reasons behind port 25 blocking, and I agree with them (for the most part). However, the users in question are reputable, and need to be able to send their mail through my server (rather than through the servers on the networks they are connected to). The simple answer, of course, is to set up a second SMTP listener on the machine, listening on a different port. But I don't want to have to set up a second instance of XMail (with all the attendant configuring and spam issues and whatnot), so I'm looking around to see if anyone knows of a way (either using Windows itself, or some trusted piece of software that won't run the system into the ground) to redirect connections from one port to another. For example, having a remote user connect to port 587 instead of 25, and having that connection redirected to the existing SMTP listener on port 25. I've considered using a proxy server, but I can't find any that are both trustworthy and lightweight enough for me to be comfortable with them. I'm not looking for a secure setup here - anything coming into this port will be treated just as a standard SMTP connection (meaning all the spam filtering and relay blocking of my main server will be in effect). So, SSH tunneling and such things are not really what I'm after (perhaps at some future point, for secure email services, but not now). Oh, and if at all possible, I'd like to avoid things like Cygwin - I've never had good luck with using it... Thanks for any suggestions (even if they amount to go soak your head...:) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Port forwarding / redirection
At 14:51 3/26/2004, Kirk Friggstad wrote: You realize that XMail can listen on more than one port for SMTP, right? Check out the -SI commandline parameter in the documentation. For example: -SI 192.168.0.1:25 -SI 192.168.0.1:2500 would set XMail to listen to port 25 and 2500 for incoming SMTP connections on 192.168.0.1 - no tunneling software, etc. needed. For the Windows version, you'll need to add this to the XMAIL_CMD_LINE value of the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\GNU\XMail\ registry key. We've been using this type of configuration for quite some time to help our remote users who are stuck with Earthlink or other ISPs that block port 25 outgoing. There you go - no muss, no fuss, no Cygwin, no SSL/SSH tunneling... hope that helps! OK, I added the second -SI option on the MAILCMD_LINE registry entry, but I'm having a bit of problem. I currently have: -Pl -Sl 66.219.172.36:25 -SI 66.219.172.36:587 -Ql -Cl -Ll Problem is, with it set this way, it answers on port 587, but *not* on port 25... Is there some other configuration that has to be done in connection with this? If I remove the second -SI entry, it works correctly. (Also, it doesn't matter which order I list them in, as long as the :587 entry is in there, that's the only port it answers on...) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Port forwarding / redirection
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Tracy wrote: At 14:51 3/26/2004, Kirk Friggstad wrote: You realize that XMail can listen on more than one port for SMTP, right? Check out the -SI commandline parameter in the documentation. For example: -SI 192.168.0.1:25 -SI 192.168.0.1:2500 would set XMail to listen to port 25 and 2500 for incoming SMTP connections on 192.168.0.1 - no tunneling software, etc. needed. For the Windows version, you'll need to add this to the XMAIL_CMD_LINE value of the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\GNU\XMail\ registry key. We've been using this type of configuration for quite some time to help our remote users who are stuck with Earthlink or other ISPs that block port 25 outgoing. There you go - no muss, no fuss, no Cygwin, no SSL/SSH tunneling... hope that helps! OK, I added the second -SI option on the MAILCMD_LINE registry entry, but I'm having a bit of problem. I currently have: -Pl -Sl 66.219.172.36:25 -SI 66.219.172.36:587 -Ql -Cl -Ll ^^^ It's -SI :-) - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: OT: Port forwarding / redirection
At 15:52 3/26/2004, Tracy wrote: OK, I added the second -SI option on the MAILCMD_LINE registry entry, but I'm having a bit of problem. I currently have: -Pl -Sl 66.219.172.36:25 -SI 66.219.172.36:587 -Ql -Cl -Ll Problem is, with it set this way, it answers on port 587, but *not* on port 25... Is there some other configuration that has to be done in connection with this? If I remove the second -SI entry, it works correctly. (Also, it doesn't matter which order I list them in, as long as the :587 entry is in there, that's the only port it answers on...) sigh Nevermiind i... Not L gropes for dunce hat, sits in corner - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: (No In-Reply-To: 031d01c40d9c$fd5d0e90$9700a8c0@eagle
Mircea Ciocan wrote: smartpost.ro also ;-) and for this post to not be a complete waste of bandwitdh here are some announcements for the users of Mandrake Linux 9.2: Latest pre15 (S)RPMs and latest Courier-imap 3.0.2 ( the version with ACLs) patched to work smooth together are available at: http://mircea.interplus.ro/ftp/ultraupdates Can I apply the same source patch to 3.02 as to the previous version to use it with XMail? -- Groeten, Peter WinErr: 009 Horrible bug encountered - God knows what has happened - - Heb je een Dreambox 7000S ? - Kijk eens op http://www.dreamvcr.com - Kijk ook op http://www.lindeman.org - ICQ 22383596 - Uptime lindeman.org - 30 days, 22 hours and 57 minutes, 1 user logged in. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: (No In-Reply-To: 031d01c40d9c$fd5d0e90$9700a8c0@eagle
Peter Lindeman wrote: Mircea Ciocan wrote: smartpost.ro also ;-) and for this post to not be a complete waste of bandwitdh here are some announcements for the users of Mandrake Linux 9.2: Latest pre15 (S)RPMs and latest Courier-imap 3.0.2 ( the version with ACLs) patched to work smooth together are available at: http://mircea.interplus.ro/ftp/ultraupdates Can I apply the same source patch to 3.02 as to the previous version to use it with XMail? Sure it works for 2.x.y series also. Mircea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[xmail] Re: (No In-Reply-To: 031d01c40d9c$fd5d0e90$9700a8c0@eagle
Mircea Ciocan wrote: Can I apply the same source patch to 3.02 as to the previous version to use it with XMail? Sure it works for 2.x.y series also. Ok, thanks, going to try that this weekend! -- Groeten, Peter Loopback detected. - - Heb je een Dreambox 7000S ? - Kijk eens op http://www.dreamvcr.com - Kijk ook op http://www.lindeman.org - ICQ 22383596 - Uptime lindeman.org - 30 days, 23 hours and 22 minutes, 1 user logged in. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe xmail in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line help in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
