Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:47:23 -0400 From: Jeremy Knope <jerome (at mark) rainstormconsulting.com> Subject: [coba-e:13945] Re: AW: Re: sendmail question To: coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org Message-Id: <F3BF8B96-8B6F-4ABC-97F5-02F55386229F (at mark) rainstormconsulting.com> In-Reply-To: <F8AEA842D451411D9CED6CBF3F8F011D@x2> References: <VPOP31.5.0l.20080910182828.510.2d7f.1.505a6688 (at mark) t1.tec1.net> <134F219B440745488A75A81FF9B1BBA9 (at mark) TikKlikPC11> <E5C929FC6F6D43418DA3535FF12FD4EF (at mark) OfficeKen> <200809111940.06521.bq (at mark) solarspeed.net> <F8AEA842D451411D9CED6CBF3F8F011D (at mark) x2> X-Mail-Count: 13945Pretty sure we're doing goaway on at least one of our servers without problem, we did it after recommendation from a security scanner also. Jeremy Knope Web Programmer Rainstorm Consulting: http://www.rainstormconsulting.com "Designing Strategies for Internet Success." jerome (at mark) rainstorminc.com Phone: 207-866-3908 Fax: 207-866-0297 On Sep 11, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Florian Arzberger wrote: > Michael Stauber <mailto:bq (at mark) solarspeed.net> schrieb am Donnerstag, 11. > September 2008 19:40: > >> >> That is indeed quite useful, as it's strictly locking down what >> Sendmail will do. Especially dissalowing verify is a good procedure. >> Otherwise people can use "verify" to find out what users you have on >> a box and then SPAM them all in one go. Which is not that uncommon. >> >> So yeah, I would recommend to put it in and give it a try. > > maybe it should be made bq standard then, or are there any potential > downsides? >13945_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)