[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux as a mail and intranetserver



On Wed, Oct 15, 1997 at 10:36:11PM +0500, Dirk Kievith wrote:
> 
> What I would need is a support for multiple email users on one or two
> machines, like Pegasus Mail. The kind of thing they implement in a college
> I suppose. Thus password protected login would also be necessary. Pegasus
> does not feature that either.
> 
> Suppose I will have to shift to Linux-based-email-packages?? :-)

Well, the simplest solution would be to give your users an account on the
machine, with login and password, and let them telnet into the box.

Bingo, the only security problems you have are the ones you would have
anyway (except for somebody using the shell account to hack the debian
server, but well, no), and the security on the Mess-DOS thingummies is not
relevant to the security of the Linux box.

>From the shell account, any common Unix mail-reader can be used, Emacs does
it (like it does everything else), and elm, mutt and pine are specialized,
easy-to-use and light-weight solutions.

Netscrape could be used on another plane, without user authentication.

Unless, of course, you don't want your users hanging around on a Unix box...
Everything depends on the level of the users, maybe using a different system
would be asking too much ?

Another solution is to consider a secure Mess-DOS part [1] and a working
Samba solution, and to deliver into the Samba-exported directory for each
user. I don't know if it would work, more specifically I don't know if Samba
lets the normal Unix processes write to the Samba-exported directories as if
there were normal ext2fs Linux partitions. 

Hope this opened up an avenue of choice :-)

[1] that's an oxymore, ie. a contradiction in terms :-)

-- 
include <std_disclaim.h>                  Lorens KOCKUM ( kockum@efrei.fr )


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: