| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1807.1 | use gxd for POP3, see app notes for many-to-one | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Sebastian L�lsdorf | Thu Feb 20 1997 06:54 | 11 |
| Arthur,
you may configure gxd on port 110 (or maybe 109) for POP3. Mind that
the POP3 client must specify the firewall as his POP3 server then,
so gxd will connect him to the real POP3 server.
There is an application note explaning how to configure many-to-one
relays. I think AFWU V3.0 will allow this via the GUI.
Sebastian
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1807.2 | | QUICHE::PITT | Alph a ha is better than no VAX! | Thu Feb 20 1997 12:19 | 8 |
| There can never be a (one or many)-to-many setup of the generic relay in its
current form, because by definition, if it's generic there is no information as
to where you want to go.
You will have to hold your breathe for Engineering to produce a transparent
generic relay and then it'll be no problem ...
T
|
| 1807.3 | | BIGUN::nessus.cao.dec.com::Mayne | Churchill's black dog | Thu Feb 20 1997 17:16 | 9 |
| To clarify...
Use a different generic proxy for each required POP server. Each one of these
proxies will be a many (internal) to one (external) proxy.
On-line application note 6 tells you how to configure the NNTP proxy for many to
one. Use this information to configure your POP proxies as well.
PJDM
|
| 1807.4 | It's a joke son... | NCMAIL::SMITHB | | Thu Feb 20 1997 20:17 | 5 |
| Since the generic relay runs off of inetd, you can only have one instance of a
connection on port 110. You can only have a many to "one pop server"
connection, not very useful. I think the better solution is to use MS
Exchange. That way everyone can feel our pain!
|
| 1807.5 | several comments | NETRIX::"[email protected]" | Sebastian L�lsdorf | Fri Feb 21 1997 03:02 | 18 |
| Hi,
re .4
I don't see the problem. On a normal UNIX system telnetd is also started
from inetd and there may be many telnet connections to port 23 at a time.
re .3
Sarah Keating recently told me AFWU V3.0 will allow many-TO-MANY gxds.
I couldn't believe it, asked again, and she confirmed. We will see...
re .0
Sorry Arthur I missed your question was for DFWS202; my answer in .1
was for AFWU. I'm not sure how to solve it with DFWS.
Sebastian
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]
|
| 1807.6 | | QUICHE::PITT | Alph a ha is better than no VAX! | Fri Feb 21 1997 07:51 | 35 |
| �re .4
� I don't see the problem. On a normal UNIX system telnetd is also started
� from inetd and there may be many telnet connections to port 23 at a time.
Not relevant. Telnetd is concerned with many clients to one server - the one
that the daemon runs on. The problem with the gxd as it stands today is that
there is one definition as to which server to connect to if a connection to port
110 from the blue side is received. While the gxd remains generic and
non-transparent, this will be the end of it, but see below ...
�re .3
� Sarah Keating recently told me AFWU V3.0 will allow many-TO-MANY gxds.
� I couldn't believe it, asked again, and she confirmed. We will see...
�
Why didn't you believe it? What's happening is that the gxd is being enhanced
to be able to work in transparent mode. That way, the client can say where the
real server on the other side of the firewall is - the gxd receives that
information from the destination address in the IP packet that initiated the
connection.
If you think about generic UDP relay, then this is probably (almost) useless
without transparent mode operation, I think. It's my guess that doing UDP relay
(did I say that was in AFWU V3.0?) meant that making the TCP generic relay
transparent as well was fairly easy ...
�re .0
� Sorry Arthur I missed your question was for DFWS202; my answer in .1
� was for AFWU. I'm not sure how to solve it with DFWS.
It would be possible, but hard work at the code level, to make the nntpxd relay
(which is the generic TCP relay, in effect) in DFWS202 work in many-to-one mode.
Much easier would be to upgrade the firewall to AFWU ... but there've been many
arguments about that on this notesfile, and we don't need another one ...
T
|
| 1807.7 | | BIGUN::nessus.cao.dec.com::Mayne | Churchill's black dog | Mon Feb 24 1997 17:14 | 3 |
| And what's wrong with running different POP3 proxies on different ports?
PJDM
|
| 1807.8 | | QUICHE::PITT | Alph a ha is better than no VAX! | Wed Feb 26 1997 06:21 | 4 |
| The problem is that my mail client (at least!) has no control on which port
number it connects to ... You can only specify the server ...
T
|