Linux Email solution Qustions

[MikeM]

Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are getting
sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail boxes.
Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my users
on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box with
Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
Thanks for any assistance you can provide.


--
Mike Moore
Computer Services Technician
Office (909) 866-5766 Ext.270
Fax (909) 866-6806
Snow Summit Mt. Resort
mikemoore@
ssst@
snowsummit.com
Contact info not for share, rent or distribution.

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

MikeM wrote:

> Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are getting
> sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail boxes.
> Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
> accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my users
> on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
> from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box with
> Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
> Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

The easy way is to run the SMTP server yourself, and have the "farmed
out" services point email there by setting appropriate MX records.
You can set up the external MX as a gateway MX server, designed to
forward the personal email to the internal server by using various relay
or virtusertable entries in sendmail, and potentially run some basic
filters there to help reduce the load.

[MikeM]

"Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sDQ5b.26390$NC2.8719@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
| MikeM wrote:
|
| > Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are
getting
| > sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail
boxes.
| > Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
| > accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my
users
| > on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
| > from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box
with
| > Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
| > Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
|
| The easy way is to run the SMTP server yourself, and have the "farmed
| out" services point email there by setting appropriate MX records.
| You can set up the external MX as a gateway MX server, designed to
| forward the personal email to the internal server by using various
relay
| or virtusertable entries in sendmail, and potentially run some basic
| filters there to help reduce the load.
|
Thanks Nico,
I think I got a similar answer on Alt.os.linux. Which suggested I set
up a Linux box, install Fetchmail, have it pull the pops in and
distribute locally from there.
Is this about the same as you suggested?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

MikeM wrote:

> Thanks Nico,
> I think I got a similar answer on Alt.os.linux. Which suggested I set
> up a Linux box, install Fetchmail, have it pull the pops in and
> distribute locally from there.
> Is this about the same as you suggested?

Similar in result, very different in implementation. Rather than doing
the transfers of messages via IMAP or POP and having processes run for
each individual user, you turn off the external SMTP server and use the
internal one instead, *OR* you tell the external SMTP server that all
received email for your domain is to be transferred via SMTP to your
internal server, which is quite easy to do with most SMTP servers. No
fetchmails or user passwords for fetchmail to have to keep online or
individual user account setups on the external server, and if your
internal server gets horked for a bit of time, the external one will
spool the email for you.

You can also take advantage of things like "virtusertable" in sendmail
to do different things with individual user's mail on the external
server: pick a different department's internal SMTP server to pass along
the mail to, for example, and have the different internal SMTP servers
act as SMTP backups for each other to spool the mail when one of them
goes down for internal traffic.

Nya-ha-ha, I'm giving away all *sorts* of secrets about large setups
here....

[Alan Connor]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 07:48:20 -0700, MikeM <MikeM@NoSPAM.snowsummit.com> wrote:

>
>
> Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are getting
> sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail boxes.
> Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
> accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my users
> on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
> from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box with
> Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
> Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
>
>

Easy. Have fetchmail bring it down and procmail filter out the spam and
send the mail to the various mailboxes.


Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.


Big sigs that contain advertisements are nothing but spam.



If I see it again I will killfile you.


Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- [url]http://tinyurl.com/l55a[/url]

[Bit Twister]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:23:32 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:

> Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.

Technically you are correct. The limit help keep down on wasted disk space.
That would tend limit sigs to around 288 characters, His is around 196.

Which is better than quoting the whole article to reply with a 122
character answer.

[MikeM]

"Alan Connor" <alanconnor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oGa6b.638$PE6.203@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
| On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 07:48:20 -0700, MikeM
<MikeM@NoSPAM.snowsummit.com> wrote:
| >
| >
| > Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are
getting
| > sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail
boxes.
| > Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
| > accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my
users
| > on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
| > from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box
with
| > Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
| > Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
| >
| >
|
|
| Easy. Have fetchmail bring it down and procmail filter out the spam
and
| send the mail to the various mailboxes.
|
|
| Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.
|
|
| Big sigs that contain advertisements are nothing but spam.
|
|
|
| If I see it again I will killfile you.
|
|
1| Alan C
2|
3|
4| --
5|
6+Advert >| take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 -----
[url]http://tinyurl.com/l55a[/url]
|
|

Thanks for the email advice Alan.
As for my signature I feel it is relevant and not spam as it points out
who I am where I work and how to contact me.
Your sig BTW is 6 lines including the spam advert to tinyurl.com. So
you may killfile me if you like and it will do me no harm or not make
me feel bad in any manner. I on the other hand don't killfile people
for such petty and insignificant things as a line or two, or even nine.
If you are hunting for a meal be aware that I do not feed the Bears, or
the Trolls.
Have a fantastic day Alan, I know I will.

--
Mike Moore
Computer Services Technician
Office (909) 866-5766 Ext.270
Fax (909) 866-6806
Snow Summit Mt. Resort
mikemoore@
ssst@
[url]www.snowsummit.com[/url]
Contact info not for share, rent or distribution.

[MikeM]

"Bit Twister" <BitTwister@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrnblieek.8h5.BitTwister@wb.home...
| On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:23:32 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
|
| > Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.
|
| Technically you are correct. The limit help keep down on wasted disk
space.
| That would tend limit sigs to around 288 characters, His is around
196.
|
| Which is better than quoting the whole article to reply with a 122
| character answer.

Don't worry about it BT. His comment after the advice means nothing to
me.
Mike

[Alan Connor]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:40:15 -0700, MikeM <MikeM@NoSPAM.snowsummit.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> "Alan Connor" <alanconnor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:oGa6b.638$PE6.203@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>| On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 07:48:20 -0700, MikeM
><MikeM@NoSPAM.snowsummit.com> wrote:
>| >
>| >
>| > Our company has farmed out our servers to Interland, but we are
> getting
>| > sick of the huge amount of UCE/UBE we get in several of our mail
> boxes.
>| > Can I have a Linux box grab all the email from the different pop
>| > accounts and have it filter the junk and virus out then allow my
> users
>| > on site (LAN) and off site (WAN) pick up the cleaned spam free mail
>| > from it? Or would it be better to just create a complete email box
> with
>| > Linux and have our off site MX turned off and do it all in house?
>| > Thanks for any assistance you can provide.
>| >
>| >
>|
>|
>| Easy. Have fetchmail bring it down and procmail filter out the spam
> and
>| send the mail to the various mailboxes.
>|
>|
>| Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.
>|
>|
>| Big sigs that contain advertisements are nothing but spam.
>|
>|
>|
>| If I see it again I will killfile you.
>|
>|
> 1| Alan C
> 2|
> 3|
> 4| --
> 5|
> 6+Advert >| take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 -----
> [url]http://tinyurl.com/l55a[/url]
>|
>|
>
> Thanks for the email advice Alan.
> As for my signature I feel it is relevant and not spam as it points out
> who I am where I work and how to contact me.i

That's advertising and that's spam.

> Your sig BTW is 6 lines including the spam advert to tinyurl.com.

It figures. Some bozo who doesn't even know how to measure the length
of sigs is trying to convince people that he's an IT expert.




Killfiled for spamming the Usenet.



Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- [url]http://tinyurl.com/l55a[/url]

[Alan Connor]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:41:35 -0700, MikeM <MikeM@NoSPAM.snowsummit.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> "Bit Twister" <BitTwister@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrnblieek.8h5.BitTwister@wb.home...
>| On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 01:23:32 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
>|
>| > Speaking of spam, the limit on Usenet sigs is 4 lines.
>|
>| Technically you are correct. The limit help keep down on wasted disk
> space.
>| That would tend limit sigs to around 288 characters, His is around
> 196.
>|
>| Which is better than quoting the whole article to reply with a 122
>| character answer.
>
> Don't worry about it BT. His comment after the advice means nothing to
> me.
> Mike
>
>

A typical attitude among criminals, petty and otherwise.


Alan C



--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- [url]http://tinyurl.com/l55a[/url]