Jeffrey Tadlock wrote on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:48:19 -0400:
> This means that sendmail is a valid option for hosts.allow or
> hosts.deny as sendmail has been compiled with support for libwrap.
Sure. The point was that the poster expected tcpwrapper to take and
process the connection and not sendma
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> $ ldd /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail | grep wrap
> libwrap.so.0 => /usr/lib/libwrap.so.0 (0x00319000)
This means that sendmail is a valid option for hosts.allow or
hosts.deny as sendmail has been compiled
Sean Carolan wrote:
I'm confused. I'd expect the above symbol listing to show that sendmail is
in fact using the libwrap library and it should be doing what the allow/deny
files say.
Regardless, the simple way to tell sendmail what you want to permit is to
use the /usr/mail/access file.
My
> I'm confused. I'd expect the above symbol listing to show that sendmail is
> in fact using the libwrap library and it should be doing what the allow/deny
> files say.
>
> Regardless, the simple way to tell sendmail what you want to permit is to
> use the /usr/mail/access file.
My goal was to
Sean Carolan wrote:
$ ldd /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail | grep wrap
libwrap.so.0 => /usr/lib/libwrap.so.0 (0x00319000)
tcp_wrappers never sees the connection directly. sendmail handles it
from start to end.
Thanks for this info. I will set up an iptables rule to block this access.
> $ ldd /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail | grep wrap
> libwrap.so.0 => /usr/lib/libwrap.so.0 (0x00319000)
>
> tcp_wrappers never sees the connection directly. sendmail handles it
> from start to end.
Thanks for this info. I will set up an iptables rule to block this access.
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 15:45 -0500, Sean Carolan wrote:
> I have set up entries in /etc/hosts.allow and /etc/hosts.deny as follows:
>
> /etc/hosts.allow
> sendmail : 10.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
> sendmail : LOCAL
>
> /etc/hosts.deny
> sendmail : ALL
>
> When I try to connect to port 25 from an Internet ho
7 matches
Mail list logo
