Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(December 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Spam Consumption Reduced for Those on Diet
From: dreamwvr <dreamwvr @ nucleus . com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 13:02:10 -0700
To: plarkin @ Iphase . COM, Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM, firewalls-digest @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <199712150946 . BAA25112 @ honor . greatcircle . com>

>------------------------------
>
>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:20:25 -0600
>From: Patrick Larkin Jr <>
>Subject: Spam Relay Blocks
>
>I've honestly not done all my research, but that's cause I'm too busy 
>dealing with complaints to "postmaster" at my domain.... <sigh>
>
>Reader's Digest version:  We are using Gauntlet 3.2 from TIS.  Spammers
>are abusing our SMTP (smap) and using us as a third-party-relay.  I know
>that Sendmail v8 has some anti-spam mechanisms and Trusted Information
>Systems claims they will too in early 1998.  Sadly, assuming their 
>release is on schedule (and what software company ever is), we cannot wait 
>that long (we've been "hit" several times in the past few weeks).
>Repeated attempts at obtaining suggested temporary workarounds
>from TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEMS have only resulted in their canned 
>"here's how to block connects to your SMTP port based upon IP-address 
>or Domain-name" which is worse than useless. [It's a shame Ranum's 
>no longer there.]
Yes the latest version of sendmail included with Red Hat 5.0 included
a anti - spam wrapper.  The sendmail release is 8.8.7.7 which by now is 
probably not the latest rev.  Hope this is some help.  Also look into 
qmail which has some good benefits:')
>
>Anyway, my questions for you experts are:
>Is there a "patched" version of 'smap' (lifted from the Firewall Toolkit
>source) floating around that will drop in to replace the Gauntlet 'smap' 
>that thwarts relaying?  Any problems/warnings/successes with it?
>Alternatively, is there a semi-safe way to put 'sendmail v8' in front
>of smap (so that we at least do not degrade its security) such that v8's
>anti-relay mechanisms can be used?  If so, can you supply a synopsys of
>what you did, how well it worked, and any pitfalls to avoid? Finally,
>as a last resort, any comments whether I should abandon 'smap' altogether
>and put sendmail v8 in place?
>
>Please reply via Email - my Usenet time is limitted now.
>I'll post a summary soon.
>
>Thanks,
>- -- 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^
>  Patrick Larkin Jr <plarkin @
 iphase .
 com>  Unix Evangelist and Administrator
>

____________

DREAMWVR.COM - TOTAL WEB INTEGRATION, DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN SERVICES.  
<http://www.dreamwvr.com/dreambiz.htm> <mailto:dreamwvr @
 nucleus .
 com>
"As Unique as the Company You Keep."
____________




Indexed By Date Previous: RE: Extremely Evil Site ( NOT!)
From: "Edkins, Rob - Axon AKL" <edkinsr @ axon . co . nz>
Next: NICS for shareware karlbridge
From: Don . Kay @ newyork . dmg . deuba . com
Indexed By Thread Previous: [no subject]
From: "Stephen Felisan" <stephen @ hob . com>
Next: RE: Spam Consumption Reduced for Those on Diet
From: Joseph Judge <joej @ joesmac . ultranet . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com