On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 14:49:36 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/8/2014 1:41 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 08 Oct 2014 at 13:00:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > >> On 10/8/2014 7:55 AM, Brian wrote: > >>> > >>> By definition an MTA will transport mail. It will do this for whatever > >>> talks nicely to it (telnet or netcat would do). Exim has no idea whether > >>> it is communicating with an MUA or an MTA and doesn't care. In fact, it > >>> will happily listen on ports 25 and 587 at the same time. > >>> > >>> Mail submitted on either of these ports can require authentication or be > >>> restricted to being allowed only from designated networks, such as a LAN. > >>> Neither of these mechanisms is known to lead to an inherent insecurity. > >> > >> Yes, I know all of that, Brian. But you missed the entire meaning of > >> the word "smarthost" as it applies to MTAs. > > > > Nope. A smarthost *is* an MTA. My ISP has one; I have one; both talk to > > netcat in fluent SMTP. > > That was the whole point of my post above.
I'm glad we can agree. > >> And yes, there are many possible insecurities in an MTA configuration. > > > > Indeed. Just as there are many ways to get run over crossing a busy road. > > The trick is to avoid it happening. > > Which is not as easy to do as some people claim. I've not yet worked out how to do it on the M6 motorway at rush hour. Tips are welcome. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/08102014221756.f26b260aa...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
