>
> > I have enabled POP logs. Is there any way to hide passwords in that log?
>
> What about setting the correct permissions to MAIL_ROOT ?
>
Setting correct permissions works fine for the case you think of.
I prefer not having cleartext passwords in log files because if I'm
debugging someone's
> Hello Andreas,
>
> Thursday, September 18, 2003 you wrote:
> AH> mail.briljant.se claims to be host
> AH> **0***02*2*0*0.
> AH> How do I fix that?Andreas
>
>
> I think that may be your firewall.
>
Ah, is this well known behaviour from some particular firewal
Hello
I tried the dnsreport tool and it gave some warnings, one of them was:
WARNING: One or more of your mailservers claims to be a host other than what
it really is (the SMTP greeting should be a 3-digit code, followed by a
space or a dash, then the host name). This probably won't cause any ha
>
> >can i change the welcome message "220 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [XMail 1.12 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] service ready;
> > Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:05:41 +0800 " to others??
>
> you can't - or you must change the code (and read tha gpl).
It's easy to change the code, you can go ahead and d
Davide wrote:
>
> I started by trying to do a separate module but became a mess and required
> also the standard XMail to be heavily changed. About 4 months ago a
> changed route towards a single package. I can't give you an ETA because
> the time I can dedicate in doing so widely changes. The fac
> However you titled your email "Bug in command line parsing" and it is NOT
a "bug".
In my opinion, freezing up due to an invalid command line option instead of
printing/logging an error message or at least refusing to start IS a bug.
It's not what well-behaving software should do. Unfortunately
> >
> >Does this use/support the X-Loop: message header as used by other
> >autoresponding scripts?
> Not exactly, it checks the whole message for ProgramName and version
> number .
> Autoreply places 'X-mailer:' to the header of
> the message wich will be send to the receipient ,
> If autorepl
>
> There;s currently another version available of autoreply wich was
> written in Perl , this version has a better mail loop check than
> earlier releases .
Does this use/support the X-Loop: message header as used by other
autoresponding scripts?
Andreas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
When trying to generate a year report, the perl script allocated ~1 GB
memory and brought the system to a crawl. I only have 256 MB physical memory
in the system so it was swapping a lot. I used the command line:
F:\Inetpub\xMailRoot\stats>e:\perl\bin\perl xmailstats.pl 2002 HTML
2002.html
Gener
>
> What eventually I am saying here is that I tried a telnet session
> on port 25 from a node on the legit lan network to the Xmail
> box which sits on the DMZ. You see, I thought that the f/w
> would block the connection but it didn't.
>
> Why should I telnet to port 25 on the hotmail site ?
>
>
> Just to be on the safe side I tried to telnet on the ISPs' pop3
> server via telnet through my xmail box. The reason I did this is
> because I checked everything except making sure the box can telnet
> out to the real world. The reason being that xmail sits in the DMZ
> behind a linux ipchain
> 220 I'm XMail 1.6
>
> or :
>
> 220 stealth mode active
>
> What kind of difference should make in my mind these two responses. I tell
> you what ... by exlicitly saying "I'm XMail" you at least will avoid to be
> shot with sendmail, exim, postfix,... exploits.
>
The difference is that if you h
A search for xmail vulnerability turns up two cases, one in the ctrl
protocol and one in the pop3 server. Both are pretty old, from versions 0.58
and 0.67. You should have seen them both though if you started in 0.5 ;)
Andreas
- Original Message -
From: "Shawn Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Since there is no effective security, every small thing we can do is
valuable, right?
I don't hide my banners, I keep up to date instead. Still, not having
advertised your version and got on someone's "hit list" might be a good
thing when suddenly en exploit pops up for xmail version <= x.xx and
Since this message seems to have passed by without anyone noticing it, I'm
trying it one more time.
To find out which valid messages are being blocked by CustMapsList, I want
them logged in the smtp logs. From what I understand this is a new feature
in 1.10, but it only seems to work when using
Hello.
To find out which valid messages are being blocked by CustMapsList, I want
them logged in the smtp logs. From what I understand this is a new feature
in 1.10, but it only seems to work when using CustMapsList with a block mode
of 1, not for 0 ?
I also want to implement exemptions from Cu
> but i would prefer that xmail server forces smtp auth if the MAIL_FROM and
> RCPT are local and the same.
>
> the rcpt accout is local, so you can think we don't need auth, but the
> sender is also local, and so there xmail could force auth.
I send lots of mail from other places using my work
>From what I understand, xmail 1.8 is broken on Win32 because of some issue
with handle inheritance. Wouldn't it be better to call the fixed version
1.8b and make that available as the default download from
www.xmailserver.org ?
I think the product number should go something like 1.8, 1.8b, 1.8
My exact setup is this:
We have one Win 2000 Server, hosting web, ftp and mail services. It has the
ip 172.26.13.34 which is mapped to the external ip 213.187.208.241 by the
ISP (they're using a cisco pix firewall). There is also a number of
workstations at the office mapped to that ip. We have p
If XMail doesn't pick an interface, then the system will decide on one
depending on the routes set up yes. XMail can pick an interface by binding
the socket to an interface ip before attempting an outbound connection.
There is as far as I know no way to make the system always pick a specified
inte
In your case it might be the routing table but in my case it's not. I have
two interfaces on the same subnet, both can be used to send to any
destination except localhost but only one *should* be used my xmail.
Andreas
- Original Message -
From: "Sönke Ruempler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[
If you have rate limitations in your router based on the ip used, you will
want to bind an outbound connection too. I would like to see that feature in
XMail, but I can live without it for now. I have a separate rate limitation
for the IP used by XMail so that the mail traffic will not take up mor
From: "DOLIST Technical Center" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 4:12 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: SMail command line settings
> Bonjour Andreas,
>
> Thursday, March 21, 2002, 3:47:09 PM, Andreas Hansson wrote:
>
> > 480
>From memory the formula to calculate
sum a**k for k = 0 .. n-1
is
(a**n - 1) / (a - 1)
thus the total delay should be something like
tot = t * i * ((1 + 1/i)**n - 1)
Xmail might be rounding off intermediate values a little so it might not get
this exact time but at least you can calculate it
ent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 6:48 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: Is it possible?
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Andreas Hansson wrote:
>
> > Try binding to ip 0.0.0.0 maybe? That usually means listen on all IPs.
>
> It might work something like 0.0.0.0:PORT
> But you cannot do something
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: Is it possible?
> That works for all Ips but not all ports :) SMTP is port 25 by
> default...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Behalf Of Andreas Ha
Try binding to ip 0.0.0.0 maybe? That usually means listen on all IPs.
Andreas
- Original Message -
From: "John Kielkopf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: [xmail] Re: Is it possible?
> You could look at the command line:
> -SI
I see the word "tentatives" in the failure reports, but I don't know what it
really means. I looked it up in websters dictionary which said:
1 : not fully worked out or developed
2 : HESITANT, UNCERTAIN
But neither makes sense in a failure report like:
The maximum number of tentatives has be
>
> I'm just lazy ; ). I don't really have the time to put much effort into
> this.
> I wound up just setting up a email client with all the addresses and just
> forward them by hand when needed. Not very creative, but hay it works.
You could use pop3links.tab to do the forwarding automatically.
> > Also I had a lot of trouble today with filters, until I realized that
they
> > fail if they print to standard output. I just wanted a simple filter to
make
> > a copy of every mail to another directory so I wrote a .bat file to do
that,
> > but the copy command wrote a line to stdout and then
Isn't starting a process a very slow operation in Win32? Since it's not
recommended to start threads or even to use too many thread in a high
performance program, starting extra processes should be very bad? I haven't
tested this with xmail since I have a very low volume server but it should
be no
> exim and sendmail just forward them because t-online.de is not handled
> locally.
> i think that is a standard function for a full featured mail server (?!).
This sounds like you're talking about relaying? If you want to relay mail
for a few specific domains only you should probably use custdom
32 matches
Mail list logo
