Le 12/04/2013 02:11, LuKreme a écrit :
> Reindl Harald opined on Thursday 11-Apr-2013@16:58:28
>> mynetworks should be genrally used with care and only for specific
>> address instead whole networks with sooner or later potentially
>> infected clients which can be banned if using auth even if the
>
On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:10, btb wrote:
> On 2013.04.12 07.01, LuKreme wrote:
>> In our previous episode (Thursday, 11-Apr-2013), b...@bitrate.net
>> said:
>>> you can certainly upgrade without breaking everything. as with
>>> anything else, it just takes some care and consideration. as far
>>> as
On 2013.04.12 07.01, LuKreme wrote:
In our previous episode (Thursday, 11-Apr-2013), b...@bitrate.net
said:
you can certainly upgrade without breaking everything. as with
anything else, it just takes some care and consideration. as far
as procmail goes, i'd consider losing procmail to be a ben
In our previous episode (Thursday, 11-Apr-2013), b...@bitrate.net said:
> you can certainly upgrade without breaking everything. as with anything
> else, it just takes some care and consideration. as far as procmail goes,
> i'd consider losing procmail to be a benefit. why do you think you nee
On Apr 11, 2013, at 20.11, LuKreme wrote:
> Reindl Harald opined on Thursday 11-Apr-2013@16:58:28
>> mynetworks should be genrally used with care and only for specific
>> address instead whole networks with sooner or later potentially
>> infected clients which can be banned if using auth even if
Reindl Harald opined on Thursday 11-Apr-2013@16:58:28
> mynetworks should be genrally used with care and only for specific
> address instead whole networks with sooner or later potentially
> infected clients which can be banned if using auth even if the
> malware leaks auth data and abuse it from o
Am 12.04.2013 00:04, schrieb LuKreme:
> On Apr 8, 2013, at 13:26, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>
>> The clue is that there should be no permit_ rules before /or/ after
>> permit_sasl_authenticated, and the last rule should be an explicit "reject".
>
> Quick question on this, not ever a permit mynetw
On Apr 8, 2013, at 13:26, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> The clue is that there should be no permit_ rules before /or/ after
> permit_sasl_authenticated, and the last rule should be an explicit "reject".
Quick question on this, not ever a permit mynetworks?
(I mean, I can't think of a reason mynetwor
On Apr 8, 2013, at 13:26, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> I would personally recommend using dovecot for SASL, especially if you don't
> need client SASL (from postfix to remote servers); dovecot is way, way easier
> to set up, and evolves quite nicely
My hesitation is that I already have an auth syst
On 04/08/2013 01:32 AM, LuKreme wrote:
I've long used pop-before-smtp to allow authenticated users a short window in
which to send mail, but now that I've setup postfix 2.8.14 I want to also setup
secure submission on port 587 with ssl and something like Kerberos 5 or MD5
challenge/response (o
In our previous episode (Sunday, 07-Apr-2013), LuKreme said:
> /usr/local/sbin/saslauthd -a pam -m /var/run/authdaemond
one other thing I might have mentioned:
# cat /usr/local/etc/authlib/authdaemonrc |egrep -v "^$|^#"
authmodulelist="authmysql authpam"
version="authdaemond.mysql"
authmodulelist
I've long used pop-before-smtp to allow authenticated users a short window in
which to send mail, but now that I've setup postfix 2.8.14 I want to also setup
secure submission on port 587 with ssl and something like Kerberos 5 or MD5
challenge/response (or, frankly, even password) over SSL.
I b
12 matches
Mail list logo
