On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:12:59PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Or they modify it in /etc and wonder why Dovecot doesn't see the changes.
Good point. I didn't think about that one.
On Jul 23, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Edgar Fuß wrote:
I fully understand Timo's concern of people not reading
documentation and then whining that librwapping doesn't work whereas
they simply forgot to put hosts.{allow,deny} into the login chroot.
Or they modify it in /etc and wonder why Dovecot doe
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:05:13 +0200 Edgar Fuß wrote:
> > Why this? I do this with iptables.
> Hm. Mainly because I find hosts.{allow,deny} easier to handle in this case
> than (i)pf.conf. It's also somewhat more staightforward to maintain a single
> pair of hosts.* files consistent accross all mai
> Why this? I do this with iptables.
Hm. Mainly because I find hosts.{allow,deny} easier to handle in this case than
(i)pf.conf. It's also somewhat more staightforward to maintain a single pair of
hosts.* files consistent accross all mail servers than to deal with individual
packet filter rules.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:31:20 +0200 Edgar Fuß wrote:
> I'd like to see tcp-wrappers.patch getting integrated into dovecot.
> I ported the original 1.0 patch to 1.1, but would prefer not to have to
> maintain another local patch.
>
> As the name suggests, the patch adds libwrap support to dovecot.
I'd like to see tcp-wrappers.patch getting integrated into dovecot.
I ported the original 1.0 patch to 1.1, but would prefer not to have to
maintain another local patch.
As the name suggests, the patch adds libwrap support to dovecot. We use is to
limit access from outside our network to secure
