[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[tor-talk] Socks5 and msmtp
If anyone would like to volunteer for this small project, here is
an open invitation... :)
What is msmtp?
Coverage on msmtp-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
Hey all! Been using msmtp for a while, pretty cool :)
Now I'm in a new situation where having an option
to send ALL of msmtp's traffic via a SOCKSv5 server
would be immensely useful.
I check and grep entire source code for 'socks'
insensitive and there was no result :(
So I guess this is a formal request to add that. I'm not
sure if there is a ticket system to lodge enhancements?
I dont think it would be much work.
Note also in addition to TCP, DNS should be sent via
SOCKSv5 as well... at least in the form of connect
requests. This way there are NO traffic leaks of any kind
when using the SOCKSv5 runtime config option.
Seems a new option like:
would work fine. And the matching config file
statement would be needed as well.
Though v5 is more important initially (IPv4, IPv6, DNS), both
v4a and v5 could be implemented. Then use:
With each definition in the config file able to use
either (version) or none (no proxy) as usual to other
config params do.
Any other ideas or usage bits for this?
You can find all needed starters here:
One list subscriber, who shall remain anonymous, said in reply...
> "If you want to use Tor, just wrap torsocks around it. Works like a charm."
Bastardizing library calls with LD_PRELOAD only works
with dynamically compiled binaries. When your msmtp
or other app is statically compiled, it's useless.
LD_PRELOAD games are also subject to overloading
upon each other, require third party tools, and can
run up against API issues too I think.
Similar things can be said for chaining to msmtp external
proxy/socat-like tools regarding complexity/configuration.
A native implementation internal to msmtp is would be
better overall solution :)
> Now I'm in a new situation where having an option
> to send ALL of msmtp's traffic via a SOCKSv5 server
> would be immensely useful.
A patch that makes this an optional feature would have a chance of
being accepted (if it does not introduce problems), but I will not
write it. You either have to find a volunteer or write it yourself.
Martin Lambers marlam@xxxxxxxxx
tor-talk mailing list