LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Complete CCNA, CCNP & Red Hat Certification Training Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-18-2002, 12:51 PM   #16
rosko
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: RH8
Posts: 93

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15

So as I understand this, is the SASL method the only way I can use smtp relay authentication? Just curious if there is an easier method, installation is very confusing to me and not well documented compared to all the other documenation I have used so far.

Thanks.
 
Old 12-18-2002, 10:16 PM   #17
iocain
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Canada
Distribution: Debian, BSD, IRIX, MacOS, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, other Unix, other Linux, other, windos (declining...)
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by rosko
There will not be very many users, but they will be on different networks and I have no problems walking each of them through setting up their mail clients for "logging on with username and password". I want to duplicate whas ISP's have done, where pretty much anyone buying a domain and using them as a host can relay through their servers, but Joe Schmoe from the internet cannot.
The thing is: POP-before-SMTP is a kludgy work-around for when your users absolutely can't connect to an IP-restricted SMTP server. If your 5 or whatever dialup users can connect to their ISPs for SMTP, everything will work much more smoothly. This is not a Linux-specific issue. There just isn't wide support for any type of user-authenticated SMTP. POP3 is a protocol for fetching a mailbox, not sending messages. So your users can connect to your server via POP just fine, but use whatever local SMTP server they already use with whatever domain they choose to specify. This is why you can't trust the domain name on the 'From' line of RFC822 email: A user can specify whatever domain they please.

SASL is something you'd use between SMTP servers, not for end-user mail clients.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:27 AM   #18
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
check this out, it seems to work without too much hair pulling

http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patr...roduction.html

Last edited by DavidPhillips; 12-19-2002 at 01:35 AM.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:34 AM   #19
mcleodnine
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2001
Location: Left Coast - Canada
Distribution: s l a c k w a r e
Posts: 2,731

Rep: Reputation: 45
Sweet linkage DP. I didn't know how much I wanted it until I read it.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:35 AM   #20
rosko
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: RH8
Posts: 93

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Hey Dave, Today I found a server called eXtremail. I installed it and within an hour had everything running pretty much as I wanted. I have to make sure the from mail can't be spoofed, but so far it's pretty good and supports multiple domains. Funny thing, a program I don't see mentioned much at all is the most painless to install and works great.

Guess I'm still on the linux bandwagon now.

Thanks again Dave,

Regards,
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:41 AM   #21
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
and it works too.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:44 AM   #22
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
cool, I'll have to check eXtremail out.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:51 AM   #23
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
One thing I noticed, pop is on port 110.

There's not really a problem with that as an option. But RedHat should already have pop3s that just needs to be turned on. No configuration needed.

With pop3s on, the users can retrieve their mail from the internet without sending their password unencrypted over an unsecured port
 
Old 12-19-2002, 11:15 AM   #24
rosko
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: RH8
Posts: 93

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
Dave, I just shut off the pop3 that comes with redhat. I'm using eXtremails pop server right now. It also has the capability of SSL etc on all types of connections. Pretty nice really. I don't think it is widely used mainly because of the documentation, or lack of. I suppose if more people used it, it would become pretty popular by word of mouth. I know if you sat any linux newbie in front of a system and said "I want this/this this in an email server", eXtremail would be the fastest to setup by far, and so much easier to configure than sendmail or postfix, qmail etc.

I hope more people join the eXtremail community, when that happens good things tend to follow.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 01:54 PM   #25
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
sounds good, I did not get it yet, I have postfix setup pretty good. I think I might try it on another machine. I have sendmail running on this one.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 02:58 PM   #26
rosko
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: RH8
Posts: 93

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
It does still seem kinda buggy, but there is a yahoo email list with the actual guy that developed it replying to posts, so I don't know if that's a plus or minus. I like "small time" apps that work well. Everything has bugs, just gotta work through them I suppose.
 
Old 12-19-2002, 03:38 PM   #27
chingasman
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Orange County, CA
Distribution: Mandrake 9.0 x2
Posts: 91

Rep: Reputation: 15
forget it didn't see page 2

Last edited by chingasman; 12-19-2002 at 03:39 PM.
 
Old 12-20-2002, 10:27 AM   #28
Anjan
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Location: New York
Distribution: Redhat 9
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: 0
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by rosko
The problem comes when the investment hasn't paid off. My investment is time, and evidentally when you see time, you don't see $$ signs.
First of all let me point out that I am in neither Windows nor Linux camp. As a consumer, I will go for the operating system that is least cumbersome, easiest to use, and gives the best bang for my buck.

You have to realize that your investment in *nix based system till now zero (according to your posts). And, like you said, the question isn't the comparison of these operating systems because you would be comparing apples and oranges. Even you would agree that editing config files and building from source is disparate from the issue of being a Linux system administrator. Let me put it this way - Would any employer hire you as a Linux administrator based on your credentials as a Win2K sys admin? Intuition, as a human behavior, is subjective. Windows is intuitive to you because you have spent x number of years working and administering it. And then you are expecting Linux to work like Windows. All of us would agree that the reason users convert to Linux is because it doesn't work like Windows.

I can write at length about why Linux is still miles away from being the consumer choice for a desktop OS and draw fire for it. However, I do not think your critique of Linux's capabilities as a server OS is justified because of your lack of knowledge in Linux. I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. I can setup a Linux server in a couple of hours but I'm totally helpless when you ask me to do that in Windows. I guess that's because Linux is intuitive to me. I have more than 9 years experience of working extensively working in *nix environment and I cannot, in all fairness, expect that to work for me configuring a Windows server.

I want to make another point that I think someone else made here. As a newbie to Linux you could've certainly asked around to find out what distribution is your best option. That's similar to you figuring out if you need Windows 2000 Server or Datacenter Server. I do not think Linux is significantly cheaper when you go with a vendor like RedHat. But they allow you to harness the potential of Linux as a serverOS and not pull out your hair with known issues, bugs, and security updates.

Anjan

Last edited by Anjan; 12-20-2002 at 10:41 AM.
 
Old 12-20-2002, 10:44 AM   #29
DavidPhillips
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: South Alabama
Distribution: Fedora / RedHat / SuSE
Posts: 7,163

Rep: Reputation: 58
Ok I must say this as far as RedHat goes..

It's free. Like all other Linux distros, except for maybe one twisted distro.

I think supporting the cause is good, but you can download it, register it, update, get email notification of erata etc... for not a single thin dime.

Windows is far from free. I agree some things are easier, and may work beter if you don't want to go the extra mile to get what you want out of Linux.

However windows expires...

That's right it expires. It will not be allowed to be reregistered, at some point it will just be unsupported and you must upgrade again.

The home user does not see this, the corporate consumer does. The software they spend millions of dollars on will turn into coasters in a few short years. Who is paying for that? Everyone that is a consumer of just about anything out there.
It will also hit the home user in the form of having to upgrade to stay compatible with internet servers and to be able to conduct online transactions etc.. if it continues on the path it's headed.

It's a monopoly, it's so big that they are invincible. Laws canot stop the monster.

Linux is the future!

Long live the penguin.
 
Old 12-20-2002, 12:20 PM   #30
rosko
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2002
Distribution: RH8
Posts: 93

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 15
As I agree with most of what you said Dave, and the previous post. I disagree with a portion of it.

Quote:
The software they spend millions of dollars on will turn into coasters in a few short years
I have a few NT 4.0 Servers that are solid as a rock running Lotus domino here at work. We don't have any plans for upgrading, and we have been running NT 4.0 since the first release. I agree to some extent, when companies are wanting the latest and greatest to ease admin costs, linux wins out in the long run. But for a small-medium sized company like mine, NT still runs great, and the company is extremely happy with their investment over 5 years ago. Every situation is different, but to paint MS with that brush across the board would be wrong. I also use linux here at work, and at home, so I'm not really not "against" either. I just want the one that saves me the most time.

I'm glad linux is getting there with ease of use. It's 100% easier to use than 2 years ago.....and that is the only reason I even use linux today.

Last edited by rosko; 12-20-2002 at 12:21 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Linux less frustrating than getting "blue screens"? A6Quattro Linux - General 18 07-18-2005 12:40 PM
Too frustrating Harnic Linux - Networking 6 09-04-2004 04:15 PM
this is getting frustrating thebutler4 Linux - Newbie 5 05-24-2004 07:59 PM
most frustrating linux problem bogler General 7 02-25-2003 05:45 AM
Frustrating PlanetNEO Linux - Networking 24 12-09-2002 04:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration