Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher
From: Brian (flackb_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/10/05
- Next message: Mike: "Re: WatchGuard"
- Previous message: Scott Lowe: "Re: WatchGuard"
- In reply to: Duane Arnold: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Next in thread: Renegade: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Reply:(deleted message) Renegade: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:34:48 +0100
"Duane Arnold" <notme@notme.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9614B62D63E5Enotmenotmecom@204.127.204.17...
> "Brian" <flackb@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:422f7199$0$14965$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be:
>
>>
>> "Renegade" <inv@lid.net> wrote in message
>> news:CQGXd.110247$pc5.47385@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:31:32 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a problem with MailWasher saying, "Skipped automatic mail
>>>> check because the was no Internet connection" when, in fact, the
>>>> ADSL connection
>>>> has not been interrupted.
>>>> This has been happening since I installed the Linksys switch and it
>>>> shows up
>>>> in the Sygate log as a blocked UDP response from the IP address of
>>>> the switch.
>>>> I can only assume that MailWasher is expecting a response from the
>>>> mail server which is being blocked by SPF.
>>>> Apart from allowing all UDP polls to pass through the firewall can
>>>> anyone suggest a rule that would get over this problem?
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>
>>> All you have to do is allow the UDP from the router to pass for the
>>> apps in question. Some apps are written to expect the connection
>>> first. If the packets that they are waiting for are being blocked,
>>> the apps think that there is no connection.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion buy it looks like MailWasher is not waiting
>> for the UDP poll because making an SPF rule to allow incoming UDPs for
>> Mail Washer does not cure the problem. In fact, the log still shows
>> incoming UDP as blocked. I guess it is reasonably safe to allow all
>> incoming UDP as I am behind the Linksys switch so I will try that for
>> a while.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, I don't know what your problem is with Mailwasher. Sygate should be
> set to trust the device IP of the router and should not be blocking it.
> Since Mailwasher is making the requests for solicited traffic from behind
> the router and the PFW solution, then they both should allow inbound
> traffic to Mailwasher. I doubt that the router is causing the blockage
> and you may want to drop Sygate and see what happens, since the machine
> is protected by the router. I use Mailwasher and have not had any
> problems due to the router.
>
Mmm, I'm not convinced by that argument. UDP is a popular means of
transporting malicious code so allowing all UDP polls, even behind a NAT
router seems risky. I would prefer to have belt and braces as far as
possible. A crafty hacker can always penetrate NAT.
It seems that it is not MailWasher itself that is waitying for the UDP
response but allowing all incoming UDP signals certainly cures the problem
with MailWasher thinking the Internet connection has been lost. Presumably
there is some other link that causes this to happen - but what? I'm still
puzzled.
Brian
- Next message: Mike: "Re: WatchGuard"
- Previous message: Scott Lowe: "Re: WatchGuard"
- In reply to: Duane Arnold: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Next in thread: Renegade: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Reply:(deleted message) Renegade: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Reply: Duane Arnold: "Re: SPF+BEFSR41+MailWasher"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|