Re[2]: nat

[Kevin <cog@iwz.com>]

  Wouldn't that also prevent the users from using legitimate outside
  mail servers?

-- 
Kevin  -  cog@iwz.com


--

> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000, Nathan wrote:
>>It's a pain in the ass to maintain an ability to track users sending spam
>>from your dialups and through your server if you don't have each user
>>authenticate and the connections all apear to hit the mail server from the
>>firewall.
>>
>>That's what vetoed ours for a long time.
>>
>>Then we just got a few more class C's ;)  NAT is a pluss for security, a
>>minus for latency and a minus for accountability for who does what outside
>>th firewall.

> Why not redirect the port 25 connections to port 25 on your mail relay?  Then 
> your logs will show who sent what (it will contain the private IPs).  Also 
> you prevent your customers from accessing open relays on the net.