Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:49:38 -0600 From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FWTK for SMTP Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000224134938.00a19830@207.227.119.2> In-Reply-To: <200002241429.GAA11133@cwsys.cwsent.com> References: <Your message of "Thu, 24 Feb 2000 03:43:10 PST." <20000224114310.PVOW28348.mta04.onebox.com@onebox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. The question should be asked about smtpd. A busy server would need the ability to handle more than one connection or risk falling behind. Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net Systems/Network Administrator FreeBSD - the power to serve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.3.32.20000224134938.00a19830>