hmm... if i had a beer for every asshole who thinks that they now how pix's
work.. i'd be permanently pissed
On Wednesday 04 July 2001 14:07, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Randy Bush [exim-users] <04/07/01 05:09 -0700>:
> > >> Connecting to mail-h.tacky.com [666.101.52.22.25] ... connected
> > >> SMTP<< 220
> > >>
> > >> **********************************************************************
> > >>******2*************
> > >
> > > This is the sign of a Cisco Pix "Mailguard" smtp firewall.
> >
> > and all failures seem to be with those!
>
> Broken by design I guess - and hiding a broken mailer behind them. If I
> had a beer for every cisco pix hidden mailserver I've seen refusing
> connections (and there's a local - and popular - webmail service which
> hides a perfectly secure qmail install behind a pix) I'd be tolerably drunk
> :)
>
> > one where postings to public lists do not compromise privacy of people's
> > mail sources or destinations.
>
> oh i see - you had me thrown a bit.
>
> The solution is for whoever's running that PiX to
>
> 1. upgrade and secure his MTA
> 2. stop pix from monitoring port 25 (no fixup protocol smtp 25 I think)
>
> -suresh
