[Raw Msg Headers][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Trouble using "sendmail" w/ inetd for incoming mail
Brian Fisk tells us about his tcp-wrapper problems:
> I tried it without tcp wrappers and it works fine, as long as the
> smtpserver is started with the -l option. (this is really weird, I know).
> Starting it without the -l option results in the same error.
I see, it relates to detach() routine doing a set of fd
closures :-/ To be put on pressure-thinker..
It should work the same with, and without -l ..
> Looking through the sendmail source, I noticed that the -bs option fires
> up the smtpserver in interactive mode with the -i option, but without any
> of the options specified in the SMTPOPTIONS variable.
> I hardcoded it into the program to make it work but (obviously) this isn't
> the right solution. I'm not really a C hacker, so I couldn't get a more
> elegant solution to work. Now it works with the wrappers, though. :)
> Matti, is this a feature for 2.99.33?
Original problem fix is, but would you elaborate on
what you want to be done regarding the SMTPOPTIONS ?
To be feed to the smtpserver program ?
How about integrating tcp-wrapper into the server itself ?
By the way, why it is needed ? To provide a stopgap against
SPAMers ? Would not some smarter way be better ? Say, to
accept all doubtfull messages, and then to place them into
some manual pre-inspection area instead of normal router ?
(I am doubtfull of its effectiveness, as at SPAM-war there
is no advanced warning on which to add wrapper rules...)
(Did I mention it? nic.funet.fi was used to fanout a SPAM
some two weeks ago -- just as I had sailed out with my
> -- Brian Fisk * firstname.lastname@example.org * http://www.netspace.org/users/bfisk --
/Matti Aarnio <email@example.com>
(I just came back from a 'Parade of Sails', where Tall
Ships sailed by with their sails on... Impressive sight.)