for sending - that's default config on
any $distro anyway, so block off incoming port 25 (on the external interface
only - NOT on localhost!) and you're rolling.
> postfix is a very good choice IMHO. secure, reasonably simple to
> configure, good documentation and friendly mailing l
ou want to do interesting
things, but you have to think before modifying it.
Postfix has a "google for the line to add to the config" approach, and
works well.
Don't bother even looking at qmail or sendmail at this stage.
Consider "nullmailer", which just sends everything s
ary to get some messages going off to my ISP.
>
> Cheers,
> Roger
>
postfix is a very good choice IMHO. secure, reasonably simple to
configure, good documentation and friendly mailing list.
sendmail - the daddy of 'em all but not the easiest to configure.
qmail - good reput
Hi, I have installed nagios and have it monitoring localhost. Next I
need to configure email notifications so it is finally time for me to
get my head around MTAs, this will also be useful (I hope) for other
things such as cron notifications etc. I've followed the nagios
quickstart guide at
just disable it
chkconfig --del sendmail
On Fri, 12 May 2006 11:34:35 +1200
Andrew Packer wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-12 at 06:14 +1200, Steve Holdoway wrote:
>
> {detailed advice which I have saved}
>
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > Steve
> > PS. I hope
gcabin, and I didn't intend to.
What you've made me realise is that I shouldn't be running sendmail at
all.
Now to get rid of it. Trying to uninstall the entire "mail server"
category via the FC4/Gnome Add/Remove Applications
[system-config-packages] function is failing beca
the Gnome Network Admin. Tool reports in its Hosts tab
> doesn't agree with /etc/hosts (and /etc/hosts is not being changed by
> the system), so from where is the GNAT getting its information? And why
> should a dodgy GUI tool matter anyway?
>
> (At this point my brain is threaten
Don't trust Gnome here. Nor KDE for that matter. Go directly into the
configuration file, with a text editor preferable, and do the work
there.
Do you run a DNS server? I had the same problem and eventually I had to
disable the sendmail process at boot. One reason it hangs I've been to
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 23:07 +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Thursday 11 May 2006 22:58, Andrew Packer wrote:
> > /etc/hosts looks like this:
> >
> > ABC.DEF.1.3 marian
> > ABC.DEF.1.2 andrew
> > 127.0.0.1 logcabinlocalhost
> >
On Thursday 11 May 2006 22:58, Andrew Packer wrote:
> /etc/hosts looks like this:
>
> ABC.DEF.1.3 marian
> ABC.DEF.1.2 andrew
> 127.0.0.1 logcabin localhost
>
> (Sorry to be coy with the ABC.DEF, but I don't know wheth
trying to start sendmail. Here is the relevant part
of /var/log/maillog:
May 11 21:24:35 logcabin sendmail[2486]: My unqualified host
name (logcabin) unknown; sleeping for retry
May 11 21:25:35 logcabin sendmail[2486]: unable to qualify my
own d
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:00:38PM +1300, Roy Britten wrote:
> What I'd like to do is rewrite the Return-Path header. Its current
> value (when composing within Mutt) complies with the RFC and is an
> address that is only reachable from within our WAN ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Not sendm
t, haven't checked
postfix 2.x because the sendmail config does me fine. It's not really a
security issue as it's only used for outgoing. Come to think of it, how
many years since the last sendmail security problem?
Volker
--
Volker Kuhlmann is possi
> >Due to the fun that the university has been causing me,
> >
> ?? What are we doing now :-)
Dumping mail originating from an adsl IP, blackholing mail according to
(some sensible) rules after reading in the whole lot instead of giving a
permanent error after doing the header tests, ...
Volker
what you are (:
>
>>So, I added...
>>
>>define (`SMART_HOST', `smtp.ihug.co.nz')dnl
>>
>>
> Is that a correct line ??? My sendmail book (and my config file)
> have the second parameter with a delivery agent in it
> ie -- ... , smtp:smtp.ihug.c
Steve Holdoway wrote:
Due to the fun that the university has been causing me,
?? What are we doing now :-)
So, I added...
define (`SMART_HOST', `smtp.ihug.co.nz')dnl
Is that a correct line ??? My sendmail book (and my config file)
have the second parameter with a delivery agen
That link is 5 years old!
IPv6 is here to stay. It's supported by any network company worth its salt,
including the equipment produced here in Christchurch by Allied Telesyn.
Implementing IPv6 these days is about as easy as flicking on a switch (that
includes Linux). I perceive the major stuml
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Nick Rout wrote:
> Bring on ipv6 so that all my machines can have an ip address that is the
> same inside and outside my lan (although many won't be reachable from
> outside)
Yes, definately. let us bring on IPv6. Although, there are many
discussions on if IPv6 will
>> LAN because you can't find out where to send it to.
>
> well you could bypass the adsl router and do the dns lookups direct from
> the internal machine.
resolv.conf contains the ip addresses of 2 ihug dns servers. Why sendmail
failed to lookup, and the aforementioned ip addre
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:27:08 +1300
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> If your adsl router doesn't support mx lookups (are there really any
> that stupid?) you won't be able to send mail properly from your inside
> LAN because you can't find out where to send it to.
well you could bypass the adsl router an
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:27:08 +1300
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> > Being a (the?) sendmail user
>
> Me too :) (Though as soon as postfix manages to do the header rewriting
> I want done, I'll switch)
what header re-writing do you want?
--
Nick Rout
> Being a (the?) sendmail user
Me too :) (Though as soon as postfix manages to do the header rewriting
I want done, I'll switch)
>, it's pretty simple to implement this. Just
> add a line to the sendmail.mc file, recompile, and reload.
Ehh, that didn't sound simple.
Hi Folks,
Due to the fun that the university has been causing me, I have had to
start sending my mail via smart host.
Being a (the?) sendmail user, it's pretty simple to implement this. Just
add a line to the sendmail.mc file, recompile, and reload.
So, I added...
define (`SMART
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 16:40 +1300, Roy Britten wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 04:41:37PM +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> > Are you sure you're running sendmail? Most seem to be running exim
> > these days.
>
> How does one discover which of sendmail|qmail|exim|whatever
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 04:41:37PM +1300, Steve Holdoway wrote:
> Are you sure you're running sendmail? Most seem to be running exim
> these days.
How does one discover which of sendmail|qmail|exim|whatever is being
used to deliver mail?
Cheers,
Roy.
dress. (Thunderbird, which I'm using for
this email, uses an SMTP server; Mutt uses, presumably, sendmail locally).
My box has no sendmail.cf file.
Are you sure you're running sendmail? Most seem to be running exim these
days. You need some kind of config file - is there anything in
/etc/mail?
othing to do with the list server, but the university's incoming mail
filtering. Any email which does not have a resolvable return-path: (aka
mail-from, envelope sender) domain gets unceremonially dumped without
comment. I found this out when I contructing my own sendmail config.
> Mutt u
Roy Britten wrote:
On 09/02/05 15:03, Nick Rout wrote:
is there a reason to _not_ set up mutt differently?
No means to do so documented nor found by experimentation.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2003-July/011508.html
Cheers, Rex
On 09/02/05 15:03, Nick Rout wrote:
> is there a reason to _not_ set up mutt differently?
No means to do so documented nor found by experimentation.
Cheers,
Roy.
On 09/02/05 15:05, Jim Cheetham wrote:
> How about something like that in the .muttrc file?
I have the From header rewritten in my .muttrc file. Attempting to rewrite the
Return-Path in the same manner fails (either Mutt or sendmail ignores the
directive, and any following my_hdrs).
Cheers,
Roy.
dress. (Thunderbird, which I'm using for
this email, uses an SMTP server; Mutt uses, presumably, sendmail locally).
You can ask mutt to populate your headers differently ...
Here, I get it to re-write my From: header, based on the target To:
address ... ("AT" added to the addresses ...)
send-hoo
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:00:38 +1300
Roy Britten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I'd like to do is rewrite the Return-Path header. Its current value (when
> composing within Mutt) complies with the RFC and is an address that is only
> reachable from within our WAN ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
is there a
27;m using for
this email, uses an SMTP server; Mutt uses, presumably, sendmail locally).
My box has no sendmail.cf file.
What I'd like to do is rewrite the Return-Path header. Its current value (when
composing within Mutt) complies with the RFC and is an address that is only
reachable from
Rex Johnston wrote:
Hi all,
Recent developments have prompted me to reconfigure a few bits in my
sendmail server. Those who use sendmail will be familiar with the
'access' database. This deals only with SMTP data, i.e. IP addresses
and the MAIL FROM: & RCPT TO: info. It cannot
Rex Johnston wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not convinced that rejecting from an "innocent" third-party
is quite the best thing to do. Accepting and black-holing, perhaps.
In which case the RHS
$#discard $: discard
might work. I'll give it a go...
SCheckEnvelopeSender
R$* whatever $*$#discard $: disca
> I was waiting to see what happened. Nothing so far. No bolts of
> lightning, nothing.
Depends on the list server, but some delay in auto-unsubscribe is
sensible to cope with temporary mail delivery problems (e.g. your ISPs
mail server down for a few hours). In any case you're putting the burd
Lets stop picking on vatsala now, i think he has more or less got the
message, the nature of his posts have improved considerably. then you do
not need to reject any uni messages.
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:14:42 +1300
Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
>
> > As far
Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
As far as the uni's list server is concerned, these are emails from the
list server to *you*. Any self-respecting list server (not sure whether
the uni one counts here) will after some(?) tries conclude you're dead
and automatically unsubscribe you without notice.
I was waiti
> Bounce is not the right word. They are rejected.
> I expect they'd just be removed from the queue at Uni in time
As far as the uni's list server is concerned, these are emails from the
list server to *you*. Any self-respecting list server (not sure whether
the uni one counts here) will after so
Jim Cheetham wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not convinced that rejecting from an "innocent" third-party is
quite the best thing to do. Accepting and black-holing, perhaps. But too
In which case the RHS
$#discard $: discard
might work. I'll give it a go...
Cheers, Rex
Rex Johnston wrote:
Jim Cheetham wrote:
So, you'll bounce back to the University emails that you don't want?
"I don't think you want to do it like that"
Bounce is not the right word. They are rejected.
I expect they'd just be removed from the queue at Uni in time (anyone
know for sure?).
Hmmm. I'
Jim Cheetham wrote:
So, you'll bounce back to the University emails that you don't want?
"I don't think you want to do it like that"
Bounce is not the right word. They are rejected.
I expect they'd just be removed from the queue at Uni in time (anyone
know for sure?).
Rex
Rex Johnston wrote:
SCheckEnvelopeSender
R$* whoever $*$#error $: 553 EIVEHADENOUGHGOAWAY
R$* $@ OK
So, you'll bounce back to the University emails that you don't want?
"I don't think you want to do it like that"
-jim
Hi all,
Recent developments have prompted me to reconfigure a few bits in my
sendmail server. Those who use sendmail will be familiar with the
'access' database. This deals only with SMTP data, i.e. IP addresses
and the MAIL FROM: & RCPT TO: info. It cannot deal with what is
a
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 09:17, Nick Rout wrote:
> nah. bu. wrong. gentoo is not based on debian. gentoo is based on
> nothing. It has its own packaging system.
OK, must have been thinking fuzzily before my first coffee ... :-)
http://www.debtoo.org/
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:13:24 +1200
Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW - does Gentoo defaultly setup a mail server thingee? I can't
> > remember doing that before.
>
> Well, it's based on Debian, and Debian sets up Exim ... so there's a
> good chance. However, it might not be config
by default it sets up some form of mta so that there is mail facility
for cron. However IMHO you are better to ditch it and go with postfix.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:59:47 +1200
Brad Beveridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW - does Gentoo defaultly setup a mail server thingee? I can't
> remember
On Mon, 2004-04-19 at 08:59, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> So for mail local to my machine, do I configure mozilla
> mail to look at localhost for a mail server?
Yes, *if* you are running a POP or IMAP mail server, which by default
you will not be.
Generally, mail is delivered to a "mbox" file in /var/
im Cheetham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:35 PM
> To: canterbury linux users group
> Subject: Why use a MTA like sendmail
>
>
> It's not hijacking a thread if you start a new message (not reply) and
> choose a different subject, like this one ..
On Friday 16 April 2004 16:45, Rex Johnston wrote:
> Jim Cheetham wrote:
> > Oh, Rex - I think I see where you're coming from, despite the odd
> > punctuation - sendmail probably does rule ducks :-)
>
> Other MTAs are just fowl.
Indeed!
http://www.notes.co.il/benbasat/5
Jim Cheetham wrote:
Oh, Rex - I think I see where you're coming from, despite the odd
punctuation - sendmail probably does rule ducks :-)
Other MTAs are just fowl.
Rex
It's not hijacking a thread if you start a new message (not reply) and
choose a different subject, like this one ...
> could somebody
> give me a quick run down (or link) on why you would use sendmail/qmail
> at all? I just use mozilla's builtin mail agent, am I missing some
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 07:32:05PM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Trying to set up Majordomo on top of sendmail... running into issues...
> I cant...
> POST to the list...
> It howls and complains that it cant write to the address list
Is the Majordomo user set up as a trus
On Thursday 08 April 2004 19:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Trying to set up Majordomo on top of sendmail... running into issues...
Unless you _have_ to use those two horrors, I'd suggest you use Postfix and
Mailman instead.
http://www.postfix.org/
http://www.list.org/
Otherwise I d
Trying to set up Majordomo on top of sendmail... running into issues...
I can...
Generate a mailing list
subscribe to that list
unsubscribe to the list
I cant...
POST to the list...
It howls and complains that it cant write to the address list
Greystoke - ADDRESS FROM FILE /usr/local
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 10:34:11AM +1200, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> >If you're editing sendmail.cf directly, either you are a Sendmail
> >wizard, or you simply cannot read.
> Well then. You've proved it, Matthew. I cannot read.
> I shall go back to my cot, toss my toy
you are a Sendmail
wizard, or you simply cannot read.
Well then. You've proved it, Matthew. I cannot read.
I shall go back to my cot, toss my toys, and spit the dummy.
Cheers,
Carl.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 10:07:59AM +1200, Carl Cerecke wrote:
> From my experience, editing a sendmail.cf file to do what you want (and
> nothing you don't want) is somewhat like going into battle with a grumpy
> balrog.
If you're editing sendmail.cf directly, either you are a
Rex Johnston wrote:
Dont edit sendmail.cf, use the m4 macro system and edit sendmail.mc.
A much more sensible idea.
Last time I edited it (quite a few years ago), there was no nice
autogeneration from a sendmail.mc file. You had to get your hands dirty,
so to speak.
Cheers,
Carl.
do what you want (and
> > nothing you don't want) is somewhat like going into battle with a grumpy
> > balrog.
>
> Dont edit sendmail.cf, use the m4 macro system and edit sendmail.mc.
>
> Debian encapsules the macro with Makefiles. Just edit the sendmail.mc
> to incl
il.cf, use the m4 macro system and edit sendmail.mc.
Debian encapsules the macro with Makefiles. Just edit the sendmail.mc
to include the right FEATURES etc, the type
make sendmail.cf
/etc/init.d/sendmail restart
and you are away.
It's preserved through apt-get upgrades too.
No magic
Matthew Gregan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:38:38PM +1200, Vik Olliver wrote:
Is this magic too dark for mere mortals? Do I need a ring of some
sort, or a glowing sword and paucity of footwear perhaps?
No, just the ability to read.
My 6 year old can read.
From my experience, editing a send
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:38:38PM +1200, Vik Olliver wrote:
> I'd like to be able to alias the "From:" field in my sendmail
> configuration somehow for outgoing mail to conceal internal usernames
> etc.
The ``genericstable'' feature should suit your needs.
I'd like to be able to alias the "From:" field in my sendmail
configuration somehow for outgoing mail to conceal internal usernames
etc. Is this magic too dark for mere mortals? Do I need a ring of some
sort, or a glowing sword and paucity of footwear perhaps?
Vik :v)
--
This PC
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 03:08, Ben devine wrote:
> Has anyone else had past experiences with adding this at the mail-server e.g
> sendmail or procmail?
An easy way to add things to email after it has left the MUA is to use
something like GNU Anubis, which is an SMTP proxy.
-jim
mail-server e.g
sendmail or procmail?
--
Ben Devine
17:08:16 up 5:55, 3 users, load average: 0.19, 0.14, 0.08
:
A remote root exploit in Sendmail have been discovered.
Most distros have already issued an update.
Cheers,
Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2003 10:36 a.m.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ATTN. Critical Sendmail vulnerability
>
>
> Thanks for the heads up =)
> Have you got a link?
>
> Cheers,
> Gareth
>
> On Tuesday 04 March 200
Thanks for the heads up =)
Have you got a link?
Cheers,
Gareth
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 09:33, Ryurick M. Hristev wrote:
> A remote root exploit in Sendmail have been discovered.
> Most distros have already issued an update.
>
> Cheers,
A remote root exploit in Sendmail have been discovered.
Most distros have already issued an update.
Cheers,
--
Ryurick M. Hristev mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer Systems Manager
University of Canterbury, Physics & Astronomy Dept., New Zealand
> Does anyone speak /etc/sendmail.cf ? ;-)
Many'o'sol have prished looking into that file..
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- What's on at your local cinema?
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Gareth Williams wrote:
> I am setting up mutt on my laptop (low specs, so I want to use as many text
> based apps as possible).
I can recommend 'slrn' for reading newsgroups. It is a threaded newsreader
available from http://www.slrn.org
Only a 1 meg download and probably ava
> Look for this
>
> # "Smart" relay host (may be null)
> DS
>
> And fill in the blank bit after DS with the fqdn of your upstream relay.
Thanks very much, that was what I was looking for. Works perfectly now :-)
Cheers,
Gareth
Gareth Williams wrote:
[and now for something a little less 'political']
Also, I understand it's not good to run sendmail if you don't have it properly
configured (even if it was configured as an open relay though, for argument
sake, it's behind a firewall). Sti
DS with the fqdn of your upstream relay.
>
> Also, I understand it's not good to run sendmail if you don't have it properly
> configured (even if it was configured as an open relay though, for argument
> sake, it's behind a firewall). Still, this is my first time playing
the local MTA (in my case, sendmail). The problem is that I can't work
out for the life of me how to get sendmail to pass the mail given to it
locally on to an upstream smtp server.
Does anyone speak /etc/sendmail.cf ? ;-)
I have never seen a config file such as this - obfusticated is an
> Sure, in a corporate environment, but sendmail is still
> the smtp mailer of choice for linux distro's, it's installed
> by default on redhat and probably others, millions of
> normal users will be runnning it.
So? Those millions will all be safe, as the sendm
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:29:39 +1300
Jeremy Bertenshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, in a corporate environment, but sendmail is still
> the smtp mailer of choice for linux distro's, it's installed
> by default on redhat and probably others, millions of
> norm
that the development process was not compromised but the
ftp server was.
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 09:26, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> So how did those precautions stop what happened in the
> sendmail case?
>
> jeremyb.
>
> > From: Zane Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
Sure, in a corporate environment, but sendmail is still
the smtp mailer of choice for linux distro's, it's installed
by default on redhat and probably others, millions of
normal users will be runnning it.
I'm interested to see how long until someone cracks an
apt or up2date
Any sysadmin worth their salt :-)
And we are talking about sysadmins for sendmail.
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 09:15, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> That'd be just about everyone then...
>
> jeremyb.
>
> > From: Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2002/10/
So how did those precautions stop what happened in the
sendmail case?
jeremyb.
> From: Zane Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/10/10 Thu AM 09:24:20 GMT+13:00
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: Sendmail 8.2.16 Contains Tr
may
> take a lot longer to spot, anyone using proper antivirus
> precautions would have spotted your examples.
>
> jeremyb.
>
> > From: Hamish McBrearty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2002/10/09 Wed PM 04:57:58 GMT+13:00
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > S
That'd be just about everyone then...
jeremyb.
> From: Rex Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/10/10 Thu AM 09:12:48 GMT+13:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: Sendmail 8.2.16 Contains Trojan Horse
>
> As for how obvious it is, to anyone who keep
On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 08:35, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> Because the source code was modified, I'm surprised
> anyone spotted it at all.
Did you actually *read* the note ?
The ./configure && make && make install process forked
a daemon that accepted incoming commands.
The source code was *not* mo
Because the source code was modified, I'm surprised
anyone spotted it at all.
jeremyb.
> From: Zane Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/10/09 Wed PM 05:32:01 GMT+13:00
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.2.16
2/10/09 Wed PM 04:57:58 GMT+13:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sendmail 8.2.16 Contains Trojan Horse
>
> This sort of things isn't the sole domain of open source software.
>
> PK Zip V3 came with a virus, the occasional CD with computing magazines
> has a virus,
Can't see myself reading thru millions of lines of code
to try and find a trojan, however you can just virus scan
a binary.
jeremyb.
> From: Yuri de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/10/09 Wed PM 06:18:35 GMT+13:00
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sendmail
actually your question has nothing really to do with sendmail. sendmail
does not let you see your mail, it transmits it from one computer to
another until it finds a home. when it has found a home another rpgram,
such as a pop server or imap server alloews tyou to connect with a
client and view
The attackers being able to gain access to the official sendmail ftp obviously
hasn't got anything to do with open source. Could happen to anyone. But I
think the point is that it would be easier for them to create a trojan
package, already having the sendmail source to modify. All be it
Unless the version he is running was compiled on that machine and he
hasn't rebooted since then it won't matter.
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 17:29, Gareth Williams wrote:
> hehe! funny coincidence you should post a sendmail question right at this time
> (what version of sendmai
hehe! funny coincidence you should post a sendmail question right at this time
(what version of sendmail are ya running? ;-)
On Thursday 10 October 2002 19:28, Andy George ZL3ST wrote:
> OK... I got sendmail running, acting as a transactoin server between my
> home clients, and ISP mail
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 16:52, Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:
> http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-28.html
>
> Wondered how long until a few more things like this would
> happen, bit of a downside to open source.
How is what happened to the Sendmail ftp server a downside to
OK... I got sendmail running, acting as a
transactoin server between my home clients, and ISP mail server... Doing
remarkably well too...
I would like to be able to check mail remotely, and
of the hundreds of thousands of methods I have been told to do this, I saw
Windows 2000 Exchange
The upside of open-source is that if you had the patience to examine the code,
the trojan is there in the clear.
I realise not everyone reads through the code before they compile, but at leasts
it's possible.
It's harder to disassemble a binary and read the assembly for a trojan.
>[EMAIL PROTECT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-28.html
>
>Wondered how long until a few more things like this would
>happen, bit of a downside to open source.
>
>jeremyb.
>
This sort of things isn't the sole domain of open source software.
PK Zip V3 came with a virus, the occa
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-28.html
Wondered how long until a few more things like this would
happen, bit of a downside to open source.
jeremyb.
Lets see if I can explain this
properly...
Client :-
Windows 2000 Pro (MCSE Student...Neccessary
evil...), Outlook Express (??)
Server :-
RedHat 7.3 complete with Sendmail and
Fetchmail...
This setup was intended to poll my ISP's mail
server every hour for mail, and hold it i
AIN; charset=US-ASCII
I think one of 2 things has happened - the sendmail confing has been munged
or the networking file is messed up.
a pointer offlist would be greatly appreciated.
thanks!
Paul
By far the best and free for private use:
http://www.hbedv.com/
Now features auto update.
Guy Steven wrote:
> Can anyone recommend a virus scanner for a sendmail based mail server to
> scan emails at point of entry/exit rather than at the workstation?
>
> Guy Steven.
>
>
>
>
>
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
