Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

>I have no problems with ISPs block 25 for non-business users, but >they should allow port 25 connections into their mail servers from >all customer systems. Requiring customers to use the newer submission >port assumes a specific home user model (but ISPs may not care >about advanced home users).

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

On January 22, 2010 at 17:12, Ken Hornstein wrote: > I'm not really here to debate you on this ... but the _point_ > is to prevent zombie PCs from doing final delivery to random sites > on the internet. It's a lot easier for the ISP to notice, "Hey, you > just tried to send 5000 emails in the spa

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

Earl Hood wrote: > On January 22, 2010 at 16:26, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >> The port 25 block is pretty much standard for large ISPs today; it's >> to prevent spammers from using massive networks of compromised PCs to >> deliver spam. > > Changing ports is useless unless authentication is required

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

>> The port 25 block is pretty much standard for large ISPs today; it's >> to prevent spammers from using massive networks of compromised PCs to >> deliver spam. > >Changing ports is useless unless authentication is required. >If deterring spammers is the primary goal, then ISPs can just require >a

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

On January 22, 2010 at 16:26, Ken Hornstein wrote: > The port 25 block is pretty much standard for large ISPs today; it's > to prevent spammers from using massive networks of compromised PCs to > deliver spam. Changing ports is useless unless authentication is required. If deterring spammers is t

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

>Is authentication required? Just changing the port does little >to deter spam since spammers can adapt. I would assume that >the port change also comes with the requirement that you must >specify your username and password. The port 25 block is pretty much standard for large ISPs today; it's to

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

>> Also, the smtp port should be configurable vs hardcoded. > >It is. As Ken noted earlier in this thread: > > send: -port submission > >(The -port option to send and post doesn't appear in their man pages.) Actually, it does ... but it doesn't appear in 1.3, because the code didn't make it into

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

Earl wrote: > I do not know if nmh supports any authentication capabilities. It optionally supports SASL: Sat Jul 8 01:36:19 EDT 2000 Kimmo Suominen * Applied Ken Hornstein 's patches implementing SASL support for POP3 and SMTP. If nmh is compiled with SASL support, u

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

On January 22, 2010 at 11:02, "Stewart W Wilson" wrote: > I tried the patch given by Valdis Kletnieks > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2004-08/msg8.html > I changed smtp.c (in nmh1.3) as he said to do. > But it didn't work. The "no servers available" error didn't occur, > but t

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

>I'm not sure what "(n)curses based" means, though I think >that "command line" would be better. I interpreted the original request as meaning that the commands are "proper" curses applications i.e; dividing the terminal into windows of content that are displayed and interacted with via newwin(3X),

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

> >It depends on what's provided on the platform. configure > >searches for available libraries in this order: > > termcap_curses_order="termcap curses ncurses" > I don't think that really qualifies as curses based, > using an variant of a standard library that might be provided by (n)curses. I'

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

>It depends on what's provided on the platform. configure >searches for available libraries in this order: > termcap_curses_order="termcap curses ncurses" I don't think that really qualifies as curses based, using an variant of a standard library that might be provided by (n)curses. And that is

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

It depends on what's provided on the platform. configure searches for available libraries in this order: termcap_curses_order="termcap curses ncurses" libtermcap.so (and libtinfo.so) can be provided by ncurses on Linux. For info on ncurses: http://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.htm

[Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

I tried the patch given by Valdis Kletnieks http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2004-08/msg8.html I changed smtp.c (in nmh1.3) as he said to do. But it didn't work. The "no servers available" error didn't occur, but this time send just hung. Attached is the mts.conf file. Any ideas

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

No, it is not ncurses based # ldd mhshow libiconv.so.2 => /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.2 (0x2af0a6328000) libtermcap.so.2 => /lib64/libtermcap.so.2 (0x2af0a6609000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x2af0a680c000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x2af0a

[Nmh-workers] nmh is Ncurses-based?

http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/muas.html says that nmh is Ncurses-based. Is that true? If so,What does it mean? Norman Shapiro 798 Barron Avenue Palo Alto CA 94306-3109 (650) 565-8215 n...@dad.org ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-wo

Re: [Nmh-workers] Verizon DSL block

> I have heard that a small change in the file mts/smtp/smtp.c > (of nmh 1.3) will change the mail port from 25 to 587 and get around > Verizon's port 25 block. > > Does anyone have that change? Any help would be greatly appreciated. > Thank you. I had the same problem (using a different ISP).