Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: SMTP behind NAT
From: Georg Pichler <georg.pichler () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 22:12:22 +0200
Hi. My message may have been misunderstood a little. I'm not in a company network or in an otherwise "managed" location. It is the place where I spend most of my spare time. It would be convenient if I could send my mail directly - encrypted of course - via a mailserver of my choice. Apart from load balancing, what is the benefit of blocking this traffic? Mail servers on the web have to decide which mail to block and which one to let through anyway, don't they? If I force all mail through my smtp server, don't I just make their problem my problem. Best Regards, Georg On Friday 01 May 2009 20:08:04 Sebastien MAHIEUX wrote:
Hi Georg, The first reason to restrict smtp for every client is to consolidate to a single smtp server and so control the flow (example esmtp, scheduled jobs) If you use your smtp server you can reduce the bandwith for every local mails. If a workstation in your environment is infected by a virus or trojan by sending spam messages or confidential information about your company you can control or get logs about every messages. Why do you want to reach directly smtp server outside ? What is the benefit for you ? I can see by your gmail account you are able to send message through webmail interface, so the smtp message will be routed byr google servers and not by your company's server. Hope to have respond to your message.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 01)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Michael.Randazzo (May 01)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Laurens Vets (May 01)
- Message not available
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 04)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Aaron Howell (May 04)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 05)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 06)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 06)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT David Gillett (May 07)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Murda Mcloud (May 07)
- RE: SMTP behind NAT Tariq Naik (May 08)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT bartlettNSF (May 11)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Georg Pichler (May 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: SMTP behind NAT Rob Taylor (May 01)
- Re: SMTP behind NAT krymson (May 07)