On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:20:56 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (howard schwartz) wrote:
>
> Not to worry, this is not another post in the ``Help! smtp authentication''
> thread! Thought some of you might appreciate dos software that is or
> will support all the smtp authentication w
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 05:51:08 -0500 (EST),
"Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ricsi> Your SMTP agent (yeah ... that one which you can telnet in ;) will get
> incoming mail.
> If it uses ORBS, than it looks up the address.
> If the mail came from a open relay, it will send the mail
Hi
08 Feb 2001, "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ricsi>> Your SMTP agent (yeah ... that one which you can telnet in ;)
Ricsi>> will get
TM> incoming mail.
TM> If it uses ORBS, than it looks up the address.
TM> If the mail came from a open relay, it will send the mail back,
Ricsi> Your SMTP agent (yeah ... that one which you can telnet in ;) will get
incoming mail.
If it uses ORBS, than it looks up the address.
If the mail came from a open relay, it will send the mail back, and tell
the author, that his SMTP server is blacklisted at ORBS.
'Please contact yo
>Date: Tue, 6 Feb 01 08:13:09
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (howard schwartz)
>Subject: Re: Help! Smtp authentication?
>On 5 Feb 01 at 22:43, christof Lange wrote:
>> Howard, could you please post this batch file? I would very much like
>> to experiment with it, too. Stu
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:18:14 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (howard schwartz) wrote:
>
> > and that authentication in SMTP is only necesarry if you don't use your
> > ISPs SMTP server. (otherwise the IP should be checked)
>
> Wrong Wrong Wrong!
>
> I use my ISPs S
#x27;m certainly no expert, but this is how I understand it.
First, it may help to forget about authentication for a minute
and look at how e-mail normally works.
Before accepting a message for delivery, the smtpserver knows
three things:
1. the IP number of the connecting host
2. the envelope from
Hi
06 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (howard schwartz) wrote:
>> and that authentication in SMTP is only necesarry if you don't use
>> your ISPs SMTP server. (otherwise the IP should be checked)
hs> Wrong Wrong Wrong!
it should not be wrong ... if it still does not apply t
> and that authentication in SMTP is only necesarry if you don't use your
> ISPs SMTP server. (otherwise the IP should be checked)
>
> CU, Ricsi
Wrong Wrong Wrong!
I use my ISPs SMTP server, I dial into my ISP's
nameserver by phoning my ISP's digital access POP p
On 5 Feb 01 at 22:43, christof Lange wrote:
> Howard, could you please post this batch file? I would very much like
> to experiment with it, too. Stuffkey is available to me.
Here is the full file Chris. Some explanation is needed for
the complexity: I collect outgoing messages in a ``Soup''
; SE> security risk unjustified by the limited user demand".
> :(( very sad ...
> SE> So the idea that I may not be able to use even Arachne got me going.
> you are able ...
> Don't forget that authenticated SMTP != ORBS
> and that authentica
made clear a number of things
>>> about the types of firewall protection they have:
>>> 1. The SMTP server will not "open relay."
>>> 2. If the need arose for me to telnet into the servers, for mail
>>> tossing from foreign site [like when I'm stuck i
ed that shell access was "an unwarranted
SE> security risk unjustified by the limited user demand".
:(( very sad ...
SE> So the idea that I may not be able to use even Arachne got me going.
you are able ...
Don't forget that authenticated SMTP != ORBS
and
SMTP server will not "open relay."
>> 2. If the need arose for me to telnet into the servers, for mail
>> tossing from foreign site [like when I'm stuck in the VA hospital], they
>> would consider giving me a username & password that would allow it;
>>
Hi
05 Feb 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> I think you are failing to understand what L.D. is saying.
SH> It appears that she is under the impression that email clients
SH> negotiate their sendmail protocols with some other kind of facility
SH> on the server end that
On 5 Feb 01 at 22:43, owner-arachne-digest@arachne wrote:
>Date: Mon, 5 Feb 01 09:33:17
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Howard Schwartz)
>Subject: Re: Help! Smtp authentication?
>
>Strangely, my mail transport of choice, fdsmtpop, supports only
>a smtp-before-pop mode, instead of t
ername & password that would allow it;
> without the username & password, it would not be possible to do.
I assume you are talking about telnetting to port 25 (smtp) and not
port 23 (telnet).
Before all this authentication business, they would have probably
told you to use the smtpserver
I wasn't going to reply, because it would just be another case of "no
win" ...
I will, instead, simply state that my ISP made clear a number of things
about the types of firewall protection they have:
1. The SMTP server will not "open relay."
2. If the need arose for me to telnet into the ser
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:51:13 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> 04 Feb 2001, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SE> I don't want to give it any more time and energy than that.
> with ORBS _you_ don't give it any energy.
> you simply tell your SMTP server to
Ricsi,
I've calmed down a little bit about this. Thanks for the detailed
information. My ISP does , in fact, use the new ESMTP thing which
does ask for IDENT and ignores it if there is no response and appears
to check the IP address of the client attempting to use the server.
It will send mail f
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Were there not some
> facility other than Telnet involved, then it would be a reasonable
> inference that we would be seeing our email clients receiving the
> same kinds of messages and feedback from the server end as we see in our
> Telnet clients d
> By the way, how are you sending your e-mail now? Is SMTP AUTH in
> effect and has your DOS software actually stopped working?
> Howard E.
Strangely, my mail transport of choice, fdsmtpop, supports only
a smtp-before-pop mode, instead of the (usual) reverse. So I
rigged up a batch file with a
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:08:02 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> 04 Feb 2001, "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LB> Perhaps you can suggest to your MIS people that their
> LB> "authentication" isn't really
Hi
04 Feb 2001, "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
LB> Perhaps you can suggest to your MIS people that their
LB> "authentication" isn't really that secure, and
LB> that the area which needs to protect SMTP is telnet
What do you mean by that ??
(ar
I just looked through RFC 2554, which deals with authenticated SMTP, seems to
raise more questions than it answers. This dates to March 1999. I didn't find
anything more recent on authenticated SMTP, but possibly there might be since my
last download of the RFC list. I think there is http://rfc
inations outside the "realm". AUTH is
no different than IP-based or POP-before-SMTP in this respect. It's
just a different way of doing it.
> Thus, any software and any person can send Sam Heywood mail, without
> authentication, if Sam is a customer of the ISP that includes
;t
have the account name or password stuck anywhere.]
To the person who had the problem in the first place: Perhaps you can
suggest to your MIS people that their "authentication" isn't really that
secure, and that the area which needs to protect SMTP is telnet -- and
that can be easil
Hi Folks, Sam, Sam,
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What if you have to pay by the hour for your internet connection time
> and you are downloading your email with an XT and a 2400K modem, and
> along comes a 200K spam message? Wouldn't you feel that you would have
> every right to bitch about it?
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 15:30:34 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> I used to get ticked off each time I got a piece of spam.
> I would go to great lengths to try and stop it.
> (send a spam report via spamcop.net and the send 10 CCs to each and
> every server the spamcop report had identified)
> The r
Hi
04 Feb 2001, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SE> I don't want to give it any more time and energy than that.
with ORBS _you_ don't give it any energy.
you simply tell your SMTP server to look up ORBS.
(or you ask your ISP to do that)
SE> I don't think there's any way to get rid of s
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:02:51 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> My understanding of smtp servers is that they just relay the mail,
> nothing is kept on the server and you can't get anything from the
> server, all it does is take the mail you send it and sends it on
> its way. There is no need for secur
Hi
04 Feb 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> I didn't know it was that simple.
I thought that the whole thread was about that fact ;)
Yes ... standard SMTP does not have authentication capabilities.
Normally this is not a very big problems,
Hi
03 Feb 2001, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SE> My understanding of smtp servers is that they just relay the mail,
SE> nothing is kept on the server and you can't get anything from the
SE> server, all it does is take the mail you send it and sends it on
SE> its way.
Yes
SE> T
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 00:06:03 -0500,
"Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 12:52:32 +, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>
>
>
> > authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
> > don&#
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 18:27:36 +, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> What if you have to pay by the hour for your internet connection time
> and you are downloading your email with an XT and a 2400K modem, and
> along comes a 200K spam message? Wouldn't you feel that you would have
> every right to bi
r own system by using a
> username and a password that they have already authorized and they have
> already matched to your identity. My ISP's smtp server does not have an
> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
> don't think th
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 00:06:03 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 12:52:32 +, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>
>> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
>> don't think there is any way you can send a message out of
dy in its domain, unless my
> mail transport software identifies me as a trusted user, presumably
> with a userid and password.
Does this mean that you will have to use SMTP auth all the time,
or just when you are a "roaming" user?
> I do not know too much about SMTP authentication
ady logged on to their own system by using a
>> username and a password that they have already authorized and they have
>> already matched to your identity. My ISP's smtp server does not have an
>> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net"
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 12:52:32 +, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
> don't think there is any way you can send a message out of
> "smtp.shentel.net" unless you have obtained some subscriber&
lready authorized and they have
> already matched to your identity. My ISP's smtp server does not have an
> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
> don't think there is any way you can send a message out of
> "smtp.s
lready authorized and they have
> already matched to your identity. My ISP's smtp server does not have an
> authentication protocol, but unless you are connected to "shentel.net" I
> don't think there is any way you can send a message out of
> "smtp.s
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:02:51 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> My understanding of smtp servers is that they just relay the mail,
> nothing is kept on the server and you can't get anything from the
> server, all it does is take the mail you send it and sends it on
> its way. There is no need for secur
My understanding of smtp servers is that they just relay the mail,
nothing is kept on the server and you can't get anything from the
server, all it does is take the mail you send it and sends it on
its way. There is no need for security, imho.
Restricting mail delivery from traditional smtp se
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:52:51 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:54:10 -0800 (PST), Howard Schwartz wrote:
>> My corporate ISP just installed what the level-1 techs call a ``spam
>> filter'' for the SMTP mail server. As a result, this server refuses
>> to send mail out to anyone not
by asking for a user name
> and password, but the SMTP protocol did not. Consequently, older
> smtp transport programs do not send protocol messages, for example,
> that use the new ``auth' (authorization) command --.
> I do not know too much about SMTP authentication, except th
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:54:10 -0800 (PST), Howard Schwartz wrote:
> My corporate ISP just installed what the level-1 techs call a ``spam
> filter'' for the SMTP mail server. As a result, this server refuses
> to send mail out to anyone not already in its domain, unless my
> mail transport software
Hi folks,
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:54:10 -0800 (PST), Howard Schwartz wrote:
> Can any one help me figure out if I can tweak my old SMTP programs to
> provide some form of this authentication? I was hoping this might be
> done with some varient of the traditional `HELO' command,
Hi
03 Feb 2001, Howard Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HS> Can any one help me figure out if I can tweak my old SMTP programs to
HS> provide some form of this authentication?
IMHO not possible ... sorry :(
PS: Also old fashioned POP3 password is cr*p.
Sending passwords in th
Someone here recently said that they could not SMTP to their web
email service, but got the error message about "requires
authentication"...or something to that effect.
My YahooMail account is accessed from my home computer and I upload
and download my mail off Yahoo.
YahooMa
On 12 Oct 2000, at 9:43, Richard Menedetter wrote:
> IMHO not ... Windows NT is classified by the American military as secure.
But only without networking support, and most of its services
turned off, remember!
Kali,
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 16:05:35 +0900, Kali McLaughlin wrote:
>> Any time the government becomes involved in something as essential [5
>> years ago, no -- now, YES] as the internet, things can only get worse.
> ...I hope you are talking about *your* government...
> Essential services in Aust
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 16:05:35 +0900, Kali McLaughlin wrote:
> On the broader matter of censorship, can you explain to me why gross
> violence seems tolerated in US media, but sex is not? Is it because USA
> is not a secular government? You would think that would make it more
> preoccupied with eff
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:32:19 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> Any time the government becomes involved in something as essential [5
> years ago, no -- now, YES] as the internet, things can only get worse.
..I hope you are talking about *your* government...
Essential services in Australia used to be tru
Howard wrote:
>> > It's pretty useless IMHO since you can't (AFAIK) use it to subscribe
>> > to mailinglists (you can not verify who it was that sent the mail in
>> > a good way).
>
>I don't see any reason why you can't subscribe to a mailing list
>using direct to MX. Mailing lists should use e-ma
Sam wrote:
>It would help a lot. A US law could prohibit all ISPs located in the US
>from accepting email messages from ISPs located in countries that aren't
>serious about stopping spammers.
I assume you mean ban *all* traffic from the outside - you can not verify
the packages to see if they ar
Any time the government becomes involved in something as essential [5
years ago, no -- now, YES] as the internet, things can only get worse.
Never even think of giving the gov't official censorship strength! And
if taking an ISP off-line because it deals with "undersirable foreign
elements" is t
rom that platform.
It seems to me that we're talking about two different things here.
1. smtp authentication (sp?)
2. configuring your MTA to always use a smarthost or send direct
to MX
> Remember the bit about "open relays" and messages being refused because
> they come fr
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:43:08 +0200 (CEST),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> How do you want to punish a criminal wirh AMERICAN laws, when he has
> committed them in another country. (South Africa, Russia ...)
> These countries have bigger problems than to search for and pun
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:10:52 +0200, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>> It would make far more sense to just pass some laws to outlaw spamming
>> and to outlaw the use of a fake email address for the purpose of
>> disguising one's identity.
> And that would help exactly how much? D
may need a "key" built in which responds
appropriately to various encoded strings sent.
Now if the foregoing happens, there really isn't any authentication. If
a "key" generates the appropriate answer, then any browser with the
:key: could access any smtp server.
What I *h
Sam wrote:
>It would make far more sense to just pass some laws to outlaw spamming
>and to outlaw the use of a fake email address for the purpose of
>disguising one's identity.
And that would help exactly how much? Do you seriously believe that you can
get all the countries in the world to have t
Hi
11 Oct 2000, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> First, making something illegal has *never* stopped that something
>> from happening. Laws are not preventatives -- they are guidelines
>> which provide for punishment should you fail to follow the rules.
SH> By providing for
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:17:49 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> OK folks.
> Volunteers are now needed to:
> 1) read
> 2) decipher
> 3) explain in `plain language'
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc2554.html
Not only is this subject matter very deep, but it is also quite profound
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:38:42 +0200, Bernie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> Seems to me this is all the more reason that someone in the DOS world
>> should try to emulate the clever functionality of Linux/Unix "sendmail",
>> which does not depend on a designated smtp host. It just goe
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:23 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> It is such an easy thing to say: All they have to do is pass some laws
>
> And it is so far from the mark it is not funny.
> First, making something illegal has *never* stopped that something from
> happening. Laws are not preventati
It is such an easy thing to say: All they have to do is pass some laws
...
And it is so far from the mark it is not funny.
First, making something illegal has *never* stopped that something from
happening. Laws are not preventatives -- they are guidelines which
provide for punishment should yo
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:14:59 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> And when "spammers" have to find a new way to send their stuff,
> so will the people currently stuck with the non-functionality of that
> "sendmail."
> If places are requiring authentication, I guess some
ome from an known open relay? Welp, soon all relays will be
closed. And when "spammers" have to find a new way to send their stuff,
so will the people currently stuck with the non-functionality of that
"sendmail."
If places are requiring authentication, I guess someone needs t
Neil wrote:
>Seems to me this is all the more reason that someone in the DOS world
>should try to emulate the clever functionality of Linux/Unix "sendmail",
>which does not depend on a designated smtp host. It just goes out and
>finds an smtp host in the recipient's domain, and skips the middl
7;s smtp
> host. So why does the ISP want additional "authentication"?
Very good question, Neil. Please send an email to technical support at
the ISP and let us know what they have to say about this.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail sent by Arachne, www graphical browser for
I haven't been able to send mail via Onfree
> from Arachne Insight--and this is when using Onfree as my ISP.
> In setting up Outlook Express, Onfree Support told me to make sure that
> I had the box checked in Outlook Express that says "My server requires
> authentication.&quo
achne Insight--and this is when using Onfree as my ISP.
In setting up Outlook Express, Onfree Support told me to make sure that
I had the box checked in Outlook Express that says "My server requires
authentication." I suppose this is why I can't send mail from Arachne.
Does anyone
Sacha wrote:
>arachne seems to have Probs with some ISP in germany I want to use by
>call,
>e.g. Yello, x-serv, expressnet.
>Does anyone know what could be the reason, and is there a solution?
>
>NOT the pass- I'm using the "official"
EPPPD that Arachne uses is *very* unstable when it comes to C
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:52:15 +-0100XYZ(nWxst), Neil Parks wrote:
> Does Arachne's smtp client support "authentication"?
The simple answer. No. ;-)
Glenn McCorkle [EMAIL PROTECTED] North Jackson, Ohio, USA
DOS prog. for QV cameras http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom
Does Arachne's smtp client support "authentication"?
(I wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Have noticed that since this afternoon I am no longer able to use
>my smtp client to send mail via mailandnews.com?
>
>Is this a new anti-abuse policy?
Hi,
arachne seems to have Probs with some ISP in germany I want to use by
call,
e.g. Yello, x-serv, expressnet.
Does anyone know what could be the reason, and is there a solution?
NOT the pass- I'm using the "official"
thx,
sacha
-- Arachne V1.66, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 05:21:31 -0500, Pete wrote:
> I got that error mess after connecting to an AMInet FTP
> server with A166. The session continued normally, though :-)
> I don't understand IDENT, but that's OK, I don't seem to
> need it
Then guess what Arachne should do is simply ignoring *any
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:27:37 +0700 (JAVT), Eko Priono wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:10:24 -0500, Pete wrote:
>> What does this mean?
>
>> Check Authentication: failed ( Try to be successful,
>> use RFC-931 )
> ^^^
> Authentication server required, read:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:10:24 -0500, Pete wrote:
> What does this mean?
> Check Authentication: failed ( Try to be successful,
> use RFC-931 )
^^^
Authentication server required, read:
http://info.internet.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc0931.txt
or send email a
il use: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
All transfers are logged with your login, hostname and email address.
If you don't like this policy, disconnect now!
Check Authentication: failed ( Try to be successful,
81 matches
Mail list logo
