Isn't the first feature of your patch a standard tcpserver feature? And you
even say inetd is not supported, so you use tcpserver...
Franky
--
From: Hotdog[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL
Sure, tcpserver can do it too. But everytimes run tcprules maybe a little
troublesome. :p
Isn't the first feature of your patch a standard tcpserver feature? And you
even say inetd is not supported, so you use tcpserver...
Franky
--
From:Hotdog[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am not saying it's a bad idea, but a few things need to be pointed
out:
1. It's usual to publish a patch, not a patched source.
2. The badip idea seems confusing; why shouldn't tcpserver or
inetd take care about that? After all, qmail-smtpd might
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:48:26 +0800, Hotdog wrote:
I have added some codes into qmail-smtpd.c, now it can do something funny:
As far as I can see, you've also added a potential buffer overflow bug
for "word". Admittedly, you need to be able to write control/badip in
order to exploit it.
access to your work.
If *one* implementation of a mail program was right for everyone, we'd still
be running sendmail...
- Roger
- Original Message -
From: Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: A patched qmail-smtpd.c
I can give you a good point on #2 why it should be done by QMAIL-SMTP
rather
than TCPSERVER -- if you want to inhibit *all* connection from known
SPAMmer
IP blocks _except_ where the sender can do SMTP-AUTH... TCPSERVER has no
way
of handling this... Also, TCPSERVER doesn't provide SMTP
