<?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[Mail Relay versus port forwarding]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">So I'm looking to move my existing linux firewall/mail box behind a pfsense router, if only so I can physically relocate this rather large box, and replace with something smaller and quieter.</p>
<p dir="auto">I could just port-forward SMTP to the box behind the FW, or I could install the postfix mail-relay and have it pass the mail on, optionally adding some spam filtering.</p>
<p dir="auto">Has anyone installed DSPAM or anysort of grey listing software onto a pfsense unit ?</p>
<p dir="auto">Should I just do simple RBS lookups and save spamassassin and DSPAM for the real mail machine ?</p>
<p dir="auto">Do I gain anything from having some spam filtering/grey listing on the firewall meaning snort can potentially parse those logs ?</p>
<p dir="auto">I appreciate there may be some firmly held religious beliefs on how/wether a firewall should handle mail. I intend only to relay for a real mailserver behind the firewall.</p>
<p dir="auto">BA</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/topic/127419/mail-relay-versus-port-forwarding</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:43:43 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/127419.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2018 11:15:00 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Mail Relay versus port forwarding on Thu, 01 Mar 2018 13:17:25 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/biggsy">@<bdi>biggsy</bdi></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">I agree with pete35.  I used to run the postfix package on the firewall but there are some good reasons not to do that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">What are the good reasons out of interest ?</p>
<p dir="auto">BA</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/753244</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/753244</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[barmyarmy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2018 13:17:25 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Mail Relay versus port forwarding on Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:41:54 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I agree with pete35.  I used to run the postfix package on the firewall but there are some good reasons not to do that.</p>
<p dir="auto">Putting postfix in its own VM and port forwarding to to it has some additional advantages:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p dir="auto">more flexible postfix configuration</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">allows me to run fail2ban against the postfix logs</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">fail2ban uses openbgpd to block offenders at the firewall</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">The DNSBL and "PREGREET" detection capabilities of postfix prevent 99% of the spam ever reaching the mail server.</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/752566</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/752566</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[biggsy]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2018 00:41:54 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Mail Relay versus port forwarding on Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:01:15 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">The prefered inbound mail chain would be:  Pfsense nat on port 25 to - SPAM Filter - smtp to -  Mail Server . Each one on there own VM or Box.</p>
<p dir="auto">Addtional Pfblocker on Pfsense to exclude some Geo Areas. Pfsense should block all other ports to the spam filter.</p>
<p dir="auto">For the SPAM Filter you may check an appliance "EFA project" : https://efa-project.org/ .</p>
]]></description><link>https://forum.netgate.com/post/752463</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://forum.netgate.com/post/752463</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[pete35]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:01:15 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>