I think it's true (Re: [Spambayes] Spambayes as an open milrelay???)

[Tim Stone]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 12:30:59 -0500, Kenny Pitt <kennypitt at hotmail.com> 
wrote:

> Tim Stone wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 09:56:24 -0500, Coe, Bob <rcoe at CambridgeMA.GOV>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But the ability to restore the SMTP forwarder to its full
>>> functionality still lurks as an attractive nuisance, right? Given
>>> that you don't need to allow the proxy to forward SMTP mail except
>>> for training, how much functionality does that use require? In other
>>> words, could you still use the proxy for training, even if you
>>> permanently defeated its ability to forward mail not originating on
>>> localhost?
>>
>> This is exactly what we gotta do.  This will in no way impair its use
>> for training.
>
> I've seen posts from people who are using SpamBayes on a shared server
> for several users, and the users all forward mail to be trained through
> the same smtpproxy instance.  This would require access from remote
> machines other than localhost.
>
> I personally liked the idea of adding the "remote connections" option to
> SMTP proxy as well as the proxy UI, requiring users to explicitly list
> any remote systems that they want to allow to use the SMTP proxy.

That's exactly what I'm working on... it's a bit tricky, but should be 
manageable.  Testing it?  Now THAT'S another proposition <wink>
>



-- 

Exprimez vous!; Exprésese; Esprimi te stesso; Express yourself!
Tim Stone
See my photography at www.fourstonesExpressions.com