<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Hello,</p>
<p dir="auto">I have been using exim under pfsense &lt;2.3… but, 2 days ago my pfsense totally broke and i reinstalled it to the new version.<br />
and was surprised, that now```<br />
pkg</p>
<pre><code class="language-has">
so, question is: what do you recommend?

I was using MTA on pfSense for alerts from internal network as open relay.</code></pre>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/100715/simple-and-easy-mta-for-2-3-1</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:22:19 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/100715.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2016 07:46:36 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1? on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:14:53 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">moving up topic.</p>
<p dir="auto">maybe someone has solution?</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/645370</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/645370</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[mrpsycho]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:14:53 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1? on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:03:12 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Thank you for the detailed explanation. I appreciate your effort.</p>
<p dir="auto">What follows are some theoretical ramblings on the subject.</p>
<p dir="auto">Grass always seems greener on the other side. It seems like virtualizing everything is a safer way to go, but on my recent memory there have been two serious hypervisor breakout vulnerabilities.</p>
<p dir="auto">In the cloud space, these days, lightweight Docker containers are all the rage. This is a technology that is loosely based on FreeBSD Jails. Perhaps, if pfSense packages were running inside the jails it would help to thwart some of the security risks; by stopping heap memory corruption attacks from affecting the whole system, for example.</p>
<p dir="auto">Ok. Thank you for reading. I am off to build a rack of servers. See you later.  :)</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/629474</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/629474</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[G.D. Wusser Esq.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 22:03:12 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1? on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:59:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">The logic is, as always: For best practices and higher security, we recommend keeping the services on the firewall to a minimum – doubly so for <strong>public</strong> services.</p>
<p dir="auto">MTA with spam filtering tacked on are huge, complex, beasts that have a history of security issues, and they are less suited to being at the perimeter of the network. You can route mail wherever you want, so route it to a dedicated mail filtering VM/appliance if you must. It doesn't have to be at the edge like an IDS.</p>
<p dir="auto">DNS services are less clear. A caching resolver for clients is good, but a public authoritative server is not.</p>
<p dir="auto">So basically, anything you can run elsewhere, should be run elsewhere, if you have a choice.</p>
<p dir="auto">And just because we have a package for something doesn't always mean it's a good idea to run it on an edge firewall. Classic security vs convenience trade-off.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/629447</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/629447</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jimp]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:59:15 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1? on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:42:29 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/jimp">@<bdi>jimp</bdi></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">We recommend not running an MTA on the firewall.  ;D</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">What is the logic behind the recommendation? If a bunch of spam can be cut down right at the perimeter, why not?</p>
<p dir="auto">What else do you not recommend running on the firewall: IDS/IPS, DNS?</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/629442</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/629442</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[G.D. Wusser Esq.]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 19:42:29 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Simple and easy MTA for 2.3.1? on Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:07:08 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">We recommend not running an MTA on the firewall.  ;D</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/629357</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/629357</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[jimp]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 15:07:08 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>