Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Proxsmtp (Email capture package like imspector) {$200}

    Expired/Withdrawn Bounties
    5
    11
    10.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • K
      kapara
      last edited by

      Similar to imspector but for email.  It uses a BSD type license.  Allows the monitoring of all smtp email traffic.  Would like to have a gui which would allow me to capture in a similar fashion to imspector.

      http://memberwebs.com/stef/software/proxsmtp/

      Skype ID:  Marinhd

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        billm
        last edited by

        The biggest issue I see with this software is the requirement for ipfw for transparent mode.  I'm betting it's not worth the asking price to you without that.

        –Bill

        pfSense core developer
        blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
        twitter - billmarquette

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • jimpJ
          jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
          last edited by

          Looks like a standard NAT port redirect, doesn't seem like it would require ipfw, though they used it and iptables as an example.

          It probably just needs a NAT rule like:

          LAN  TCP  25 (SMTP)  127.0.0.1 / (ext.: any) 10025

          Sort of like what squid and the FTP proxy do behind the scenes.

          Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

          Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

          Do not Chat/PM for help!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • K
            kapara
            last edited by

            The biggest issue I see with this software is the requirement for ipfw for transparent modeThe biggest issue I see with this software is the requirement for ipfw for transparent mode

            Sorry but I don not understand what you mean by that.  I don't know what ipfw is and how it relates to this being possible or not.  I will look it up.

            Thanks

            Skype ID:  Marinhd

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • B
              billm
              last edited by

              @jimp:

              Looks like a standard NAT port redirect, doesn't seem like it would require ipfw, though they used it and iptables as an example.

              It probably just needs a NAT rule like:

              LAN  TCP  25 (SMTP)  127.0.0.1 / (ext.: any) 10025

              Sort of like what squid and the FTP proxy do behind the scenes.

              In transparent mode the daemon needs to know where the connection was intended to go to forward it on.  The way it does that on FreeBSD is to use a socket option that as far as I can tell IPFW (which is built into FreeBSD by default) exposes.  PF has an ioctl that daemons can use to access this data - proxsmtp does not use that ioctl, therefore one of three options are a requirement for this bounty.

              • 1. Transparent mode is not a requirement

              • 2. IPFW is used somehow - I'm positive there will be conflicts with other stuff using this method

              • 3. The source code to the daemon will need to be updated to support PF - I've looked at the code, it's pretty simple, but I don't fully understand what needs to be done to implement PF support (and it really needs to be maintained by the author anyway)

              If nobody has snagged this by the hackathon, I will consider spending more time on it then.

              –Bill

              pfSense core developer
              blog - http://www.ucsecurity.com/
              twitter - billmarquette

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                eri--
                last edited by

                Its just a proxy it is not intended to be run without the routing layer running!
                It behaves the same as spamd AFAIK just happens to provide some services that the poster sees as better ones.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • K
                  kapara
                  last edited by

                  Some companies I work for have made the request to capture all email traffic passing through the firewall.  This was the only thing I could find that would allow me to capture and archive for further inspection.  Mostly its to make sure that no one is sending out confidential information.

                  Skype ID:  Marinhd

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • jimpJ
                    jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                    last edited by

                    @billm:

                    In transparent mode the daemon needs to know where the connection was intended to go to forward it on.  The way it does that on FreeBSD is to use a socket option that as far as I can tell IPFW (which is built into FreeBSD by default) exposes.  PF has an ioctl that daemons can use to access this data - proxsmtp does not use that ioctl, therefore one of three options are a requirement for this bounty.

                    • 1. Transparent mode is not a requirement

                    • 2. IPFW is used somehow - I'm positive there will be conflicts with other stuff using this method

                    • 3. The source code to the daemon will need to be updated to support PF - I've looked at the code, it's pretty simple, but I don't fully understand what needs to be done to implement PF support (and it really needs to be maintained by the author anyway)

                    If nobody has snagged this by the hackathon, I will consider spending more time on it then.

                    –Bill

                    You're quite right about it not being as simple as I'd hoped. I had forgotten that ipfw fwd does not rewrite the destination address, whereas pf's rdr rules do.

                    A quick google search turns up that some people do in fact use ipfw on top of pf to accomplish such things, but that doesn't seem like an ideal solution.

                    Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                    Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                    Do not Chat/PM for help!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J
                      josey
                      last edited by

                      is there any news about this package?
                      im interested too

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • K
                        kapara
                        last edited by

                        @josey

                        Best way to show interest and get a response is by adding to the bounty.

                        Thanks,

                        Mark

                        Skype ID:  Marinhd

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • K
                          kapara
                          last edited by

                          Please remove bounty

                          Skype ID:  Marinhd

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.