Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: FWTK and smap/smapd
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <chuck () codefab com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:18:12 -0400
On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 07:06 AM, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 06:02:49PM -0700, Russell Van Tassell wrote:(5) smap/smapd adds complexity to a mail server. Sendmail+smap/smapd is about as complex as you can get. Either qmail or Postfix is far, far simpler than sendmail alone, let alone sendmail+smap/smapd. Simple is good. It works better.By the same token, ANY of the MTAs is 'way to complex to TRUST as a mail proxy. Smap and smapd are sufficiently simple that I could read and grok them even after all the added cruft. Then use MTA of choice (and your choice may differ from mine) to deliver the mail.
Is smapd or smtpd significantly easier to audit, than say, zlib?Also, what about ESMTP functionality, STARTTLS transport encryption, x509 certs for SMTP server-to-server authentication, extended status codes and DSN's, SMTP pipelining, etc?
Some of that may not be needed by everyone, but encrypting email en route and having a secure way of verifying remote SMTP hosts are who they claim to be seems to be relevant. Supporting maximum message size via ESMTP's SIZE= is also pretty important from the standpoint of efficiency.
Hmmm... sendmail, procmail, smrsh and smapd - along with some sort of virus checker? ;-)I negelected to mention that the smap/smapd breakdown allows one to easily slip in virus checker of choice (AMaViS) and SPAM checker of choice (spamassassin). Or, perhaps better, put them in line AFTER 'smapd'.
Sure, but you can use any MTA capable of relaying to bounce mail through spam filtering and/or virus checking, although some are easier to configure than others. Milter works fine, for instance.
-ChuckChuck Swiger | chuck () codefab com | All your packets are belong to us. -------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts
is to ignore them." -Celia Green
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd], (continued)
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd] Joseph S D Yao (Jul 23)
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd] Carson Gaspar (Jul 23)
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd] Darren Reed (Jul 23)
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd] Joseph S D Yao (Jul 23)
- Re: Code reviews [Was: FWTK and smap/smapd] Darren Reed (Jul 23)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Brian Hatch (Jul 19)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Adam Shostack (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Joseph S D Yao (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Marcus J. Ranum (Jul 18)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Darren Reed (Jul 18)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Charles W. Swiger (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Rick Murphy (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Devdas Bhagat (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Rick Murphy (Jul 17)
- Re: FWTK and smap/smapd Charles W. Swiger (Jul 17)
- Firewalls breaking stuff: [Was re: fwtk] Marcus J. Ranum (Jul 18)
- Re: Firewalls breaking stuff: [Was re: fwtk] Dominik Miklaszewski (Jul 18)
- Re: Firewalls breaking stuff: [Was re: fwtk] Charles W. Swiger (Jul 19)
- Re: Re: Firewalls breaking stuff: [Was re: fwtk] Paul Robertson (Jul 19)
- Re: Re: Firewalls breaking stuff: [Was re: fwtk] Marcus J. Ranum (Jul 19)
