From owner-freebsd-security Thu Feb 24 17:19: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (blaubaer.kn-bremen.de [195.37.179.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A5A37BC74 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:18:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nox@saturn.kn-bremen.de) Received: from saturn.kn-bremen.de (uucp@localhost) by blaubaer.kn-bremen.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with UUCP id CAA19565; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 02:13:18 +0100 Received: (from nox@localhost) by saturn.kn-bremen.de (8.9.3/8.8.5) id BAA49678; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:39:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 01:39:06 +0100 (CET) From: Juergen Lock Message-Id: <200002250039.BAA49678@saturn.kn-bremen.de> To: jeff-ml@mountin.net Subject: Re: FWTK for SMTP X-Newsgroups: local.list.freebsd.security In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.20000224134938.00a19830@207.227.119.2> References: Organization: home Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In article <3.0.3.32.20000224134938.00a19830@207.227.119.2> you write: >At 06:29 AM 2/24/00 -0800, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: >>This question was asked a number of years ago either here or BUGTRAQ. >>The answer given was that FWTK's smap did not have any anti-spam >>facility. I'm not sure whether it has change or not. If it has not, >>you may want to check out the smtpd port in the ports collection. It >>does the same function as smap using a similar process, and it has an >>anti-spam facility. > >That depends on the version of smap. Using an old, very changed smap. ;) > >As for diffs/patches/source I'd need to look at the license, ask another >party, and preferrable make some changes. Have limited time for the last >part, but need to test it on 4.0 fairly soon and track down a minor bug at >a minimum. > >Haven't looked, but wonder if they changed smap to either spawn children or >if it's mulit-threaded. Was one drawback to using smap compared to an MTA >directly. It fork()s. or it can run off inetd (which afaik always was true). Btw anyone who wants to run it should (other than some stop-relaying patch) apply at least the fix in ports/14826, otherwise you may end up with mails cut in half. wondering why this simple fix still hasn't been committed... -- Juergen Lock (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message