[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
	 friend...)

> -- Brian Fisk * bfisk@netspace.org * http://www.netspace.org/users/bfisk --

	/Matti Aarnio <mea@nic.funet.fi>
		(I just came back from a 'Parade of Sails', where Tall
		 Ships sailed by with their sails on... Impressive sight.)