I would love to have SMTP AUTH on another port, and/or SASL. Davide tried to help me get SMTP external authentication to work once, but I couldn't figure it out and Davide didn't have time to do all the work himself.
Davide is very busy, but you're not alone in wishing for more native SMTP options. John Kielkopf wrote: > I agree. This would be nice to have as part of xmail, and not force its > implementation in a filter. I'm honestly surprised we're the only two > on the list that has run into the need for it. > > That said, we all know Davide has a full plate at the moment, so using a > filter as an interim solution is a good option. > > -John > > > Shiloh Jennings wrote: > > >>The reason for needing SMTP SASL support is because some customers = >>outside >>of our class C will need to use our SMTP server when sending since our = >>SMTP >>will be listed as their authorized sending SMTP server within their SPF >>data. However, their local ISPs ban outbound port 25. These customers = >>of >>ours will need a port other than 25 to connect to us on. Port 587 is >>recommended. However, if I open 587 without requiring SMTP AUTH on that >>port, then we will still be vulnerable to dictionary attacks on that = >>port. >> >>We need scalability as well. If we write a separate filter for each = >>thing >>we need done, then the performance will get crushed. SMTP SASL support = >>is >>something that could best be done within XMail instead of needing to = >>call a >>separate filter. IF XMail supported in process filters (through DLL = >>files), >>then I would simply write in process filters and be done. However, = >>spawning >>separate processes for each incoming email is something that quickly = >>kills >>the ability to scale. For small operations, spawning processes is fine, = >>but >>not for big operations. >> >> >>---------- >> >> >> >> >>>If I'm not mistaken, a "patch" for this could be created using SMTP=20 >>> >>> >> >>filters, if only there was a way to retrieve the port used to connect as = >> >>well as the @@USERAUTH. >> >> >> >>>Though, of course, true SASL support is better, for obvious reasons. >>> >>>Hmm... In fact, what's wrong with adding a @@USREAUTH check to your SPF = >>> >>> >> >>filter? If the user is authenticated, skip the test. >> >> >> >>- >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >>the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------- Scanned for viruses by ClamAV - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
