Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 24 Mar 2019, at 19:06, Reindl Harald wrote: > well, given all that technical bullshit you are talking on several lists > at least for 5 years better shut up... I asked you to stop emailing me directly, so stop emailing me directly. -- Well I've seen the Heart of Darkness/Read the writing o

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 3/24/19 6:45 PM, @lbutlr wrote: Which I posted a few messages upthread. ACK Is now. Was not then. Was not for many many years. TFC 8314 is very recent. I think we may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about the protocol that went over the port. I think you are talking

track messages

Hi list , I need to do a trace of all the messages that spamassassin cataloged as spam yesterday, I have found a bash statement but I do not make it work, some idea that it may be failing, I am using centos 6 and spamassassin 3.4.2 grep "$(date +"%b %_d" -d "yesterday")" /var/log/maillog | grep 's

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 22 Mar 2019, at 20:37, Grant Taylor wrote: What is wrong with having SMTP Authentication on the MTA port as an /option/? It creates unnecessary attack surface (i.e. one more place a stolen credentioal works.) It creates error-prone complexity in the configuration. -- Bill Cole b...@sccon

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On Mar 24, 2019, at 18:51, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 25.03.19 um 01:45 schrieb @lbutlr: >>> On 24 Mar 2019, at 13:12, Grant Taylor wrote: >>> Okay, what do you think the difference is in "smtps" and "SMTPS"? >> >> Oh, look, Wikip[edia has some details. >> >>

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 24 Mar 2019, at 13:12, Grant Taylor wrote: > That changed within the last couple of years. Check out RFC 8314. Which I posted a few messages upthread. On 24 Mar 2019, at 13:16, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 3/24/19 1:00 PM, @lbutlr wrote: >> And didn't Microsoft start using it for their non-stan

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 3/24/19 1:00 PM, @lbutlr wrote: And didn't Microsoft start using it for their non-standard email in Windows 95? I'm not sure how non-standard Microsoft's use of SMTP-over-TLS (SMTPS / TCP port 465) is. The closest thing I remember to non-standard nature was that they were atypical in thei

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 3/24/19 12:23 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: In early 1997, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority registered port 465 for smtps.[2] Late 1998 this was revoked when STARTTLS was standardized.[3] That changed within the last couple of years. Check out RFC 8314. Link - Cleartext Conside

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

> On 24 Mar 2019, at 12:23, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > >> On 23 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Rupert Gallagher wrote: >>> I was royally pissed when they introduced port 587 and deprecated port 465. >>> Port 587 is an RFC mandated security loophole. Port 465 is golden. > > On 23.03.19 21:13, @lbu

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 23 Mar 2019, at 14:03, Rupert Gallagher wrote: I was royally pissed when they introduced port 587 and deprecated port 465. Port 587 is an RFC mandated security loophole. Port 465 is golden. On 23.03.19 21:13, @lbutlr wrote: Port 465 was a not-standard MSFT crutch, ut is now used for SMTPS

Re: Filtering at border routers: Is it possible?

On 23 Mar 2019, at 23:06, RALPH HAUSER wrote: > STOP EMAILING ME! TAKE ME OFF OF THIS! No. You are the only person who can unsubscribe yourself from the list. In the headers of *EVERY SINGLE* message there are these lines. list-help: list-unsubscribe