Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: SMTP behind NAT
From: Georg Pichler <georg.pichler () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 23:53:49 +0200
Hi.
If it is allowing unauthorized users to send any mail whatsoever then in my mind there is something wrong there; it would basically be like an open relay.
It is basically an open relay, just for the nat side of course.
If the smtp server is 'in charge' of mymail.com domain then why should it be worried about anonymous.com email?
I don't think the mailserver is in charge of any domain. It just forwards mail.
Do you have an email account that is valid on that internal server?
No. Nobody does. No authentication is needed whatsoever. It would be way too complicated as people tend to come and go.
Perhaps you could ask the admins to setup an outgoing rule allowing access to those specific smtp servers that you need access to.
I personally use a VPN connection to send my mail. I was just wondering what could be the point in enforcing these firewall rules.
Is there a 'free' ;-) wireless connection involved here?
No. It's the network of a students dorm. Regards, Georg
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)