From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 15 15:02:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA10274 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:02:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from cerberus.partsnow.com (gatekeeper.partsnow.com [207.155.26.98]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA10256 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from don@PartsNow.com) Received: (from bin@localhost) by cerberus.partsnow.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id IAA06550; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:01:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: cerberus.partsnow.com: bin set sender to using -f Received: from nouvelle(192.168.100.9) by cerberus.partsnow.com via smap (V2.0) id xma006545; Wed, 15 Oct 97 08:01:35 -0700 Message-ID: <34453C6E.7A79@PartsNow.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:58:07 -0700 From: Don Wilde Reply-To: don@PartsNow.com Organization: Soligen, Incorporated X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-E-KIT (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Schrock CC: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anti-spam sendmail in 2.2.5? References: <199710152202.SAA17675@eyelab.psy.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Gary Schrock wrote: > > At 02:42 PM 10/15/97 -0400, you wrote: > >think sendmail shouldn't relay ANY traffic not coming from the box it ^^^ What if we make that 'domain'? > >resides on by default. > > Hmm, wouldn't that make things painful for those of us using pop mail > clients that use smtp to bounce our mail off the server to send? I don't > think this is really *that* unusual of an arrangement. > Would that be a suitable default? -- oooOOO O O O o * * * * * * o ___ _________ _________ ________ _________ _________ ___==_ V_=_=_DW ===--- Don Wilde [don@PartsNow.com] [http://www.PartsNow.com ] /oo0000oo-oo--oo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo--ooo-ooo---ooo-ooo---ooo-oo--oo