Not only that, but on a port other than 25; such as 465 (the official port of TLS according to /etc/services). This is a rather important item, in my opinion, because so many ISP’s are filtering port 25 to servers other than their own.
This would need to be a port IN ADDITION TO port 25 since SMTP servers use port 25 to communicate with eachother (Chris explained this to me a while back).
But I agree. My ISP also blocks port 25 
To have your mailserver listen on a different port in addition to 25, it is also quite easy to do this yourself. (port redirection in for instance iptables or xinetd).
3rd party software such as ‘balance’ (which in fact is ment for load-balancing) is also very good for this. Very easy to setup and to maintain.
(this is not to be confused withe the secure SMTP/TLS though)
Chris explained more or less how to do it but not in great detail (it was a hurriee conversation, iirc) and it didn’t seem too complicated but I don’t have it handy.
Warning: alphebet soup below.
MUA: Mail User Agent, mail clients such as Outlook, pine, mutt, Thunderbird, etc.
MSA: Mail Submission Agent, this is the service that accepts client mail from MUAs
MTA: Mail Transfer Agent, this service routes mail to the next server
SMTP is on port 25, and recent standards call for mail submission on port 587; SMTPS should go to 465.
Back In The Day ™ all MUAs were “full” clients and added all necessary header information, and actually submitted the message to the local machine’s MSA which then handed it off to the next MTA in the path. These days, mail clients such as Outlook are tied to external MSAs, and don’t even write all the headers etc. instead relying on the MSA to do it. The problem is that MSAs weren’t really well defined (since there wasn’t a need for an external MSA) so the developers just had their MUAs submit to the client’s MTA, hoping it would function as an MSA as well (some don’t). This led to huge problems with direct-to-MX spam, and the well-known problem with mail forgery (and to some extent the older problem of open relays). If you think about it, there’s really not much difference between being an open relay, and Outlook asking your mail server to send to a remote address.
In an effort to do something about it, they setup the submission port and suggest that MTAs only accept mail that is destined for local accounts (no relaying). In order to allow clients to send mail, the MSA service needed to be separated from the MTA service.
I really would like c… so I could make custom error pages 
Issue with cPanel mail transfers
Newly found issue!
cPanel decided to change the way e-mail is processed within their system and now when you attempt to transfer accounts from cPanel the e-mail accounts don’t get remade and mail doesn’t get restored.
This occured after cPanel released their now famous message in WHM:
Security
A hole has been discovered in the UW-imap mail server. New builds will be released as soon as testing has been completed. Please see http://secunia.com/advisories/17062/ for more information. cPanel 10.8 and above support using maildir and courier (instead of uwimap). If you wish to convert this server to maildir (and are running 10.8+), you can begin the process by clicking here. If you prefer to perform the conversion in a shell, /scripts/convert2maildir may be used instead. Customers who experience problems switching are welcomed to bypass the normal support procedure and submit a ticket directly at http://support.cpanel.net or calling our conversion hotline at +1 302 757 7118
Silly cPanel, but never the less transfers =
Thanks for the heads up Alex. If you have any failing cPanel backups using their new mail setup and would like to volunteer them for testing, please open a ticket and let us know where we can grab them.
Alex,
Just to clarify: the InterWorx cPanel importer never imported email data (email files, boxes, etc). All it did was create the email accounts with empty mailboxes. Are you saying now, with the new cPanel changes, that even email accounts aren’t being imported?
What is the status of mailman?
http://www.interworx.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4621&postcount=12
Also, built in dny sync’ing with large file sizes 
Thanks,
Clint
Hi all,
As has been stated by others…scriptworx additions and ability to add our own(also for skins too), dns master/slave solutions, multiple domains per account, continue with the clustering(specifically to add backup/failover monitor/director server and also to set up separate db servers and the shared storage/nas not on the main director?). Not yet mentioned…how about Postgresql support in the interface for customers?
And last…Freebsd support?
Thanks.
There are two things I?d like to see in terms of operating system support, Tinysofa Classic (http://classic.tinysofa.org) and FreeBSD, both of which will not happen (at least any time in the near future) as this CP is made for rpm based systems. As much as I?d like to have the support, it’s not really necessary 
I’m sure one of the guys will post in response to this soon, but I believe all of these are somewhere on the list.
Postegree support, eh? haven’t heard people ask about that in quite a while.
scriptworx additions and ability to add our own
This will be in the next release.
(also for skins too)
This is doc’d and the docs will be (back) up soon.
dns master/slave solutions
This will be in “a future release” but we’re trying to get it sooner than later.
multiple domains per account
This will be in the next release.
continue with the clustering(specifically to add backup/failover monitor/director server and also to set up separate db servers and the shared storage/nas not on the main director?).
This will be in “a future release” but we’re trying to get it sooner than later. You’ll most likely see steps toward this in the next release.
Postgresql support in the interface for customers?
Until we get a bunch more requests for this we’re going to table it for now.
And last…Freebsd support?
This is on our list, behind Debian and there’s no ETA at this time.
Thanks for the post Chrimpson!
Chris
Ability for Admin to Back Up sites to Second Drive
Maybe this feature already exits, I am not sure, haven’t been able to find it anywhere.
But from Nodeworx, the Admins prospective, I would like to see back-up capabilities to a Second Hard drive on the same server.
If there is some way to do this now please let me know.
Final Verdict on FrontPage Extensions?
Has there been a Final verdict on adding FrontPage Extensions to SiteWorx?
(Would be nice to give end user the Enable/Disable FrontPage Extensions ability.
If its not in the immediate future (say by Feb 2006) I need to find a “second box” alternative.
You can do this, but only from the command line, in the current version of InterWorx. Here’s how:
As either the root user or the iworx user run:
/home/interworx/bin/backup.pex --domains=all --file-path=/your/path/here
This will backup all the SiteWorx accounts, one archive per account, and store them in the ‘/your/path/here’ directory. Note though that the backup process can be resource intensive, so if you have a lot of SiteWorx accounts, you may see some sluggishness on the box for an extended period of time.
If you don’t want to back them all up at once, you can do subsets by using a comma-separated list of domain names:
/home/interworx/bin/backup.pex --domains=domain1.com,domain2.com,domain3.com --file-path=/your/path/here
This will only back up those 3 domains.
Hope that helps,
Socheat
amready suggested and already know that you guys are working on it, but maybe my request can get this item a little bit higher on the todo list:
(more) HA-clustering functionality.
This is one of the oldest and often requested items on the feature request list that is not yet a reality. Getting it working in Apache 2 is harder than a lot of people realize and this is probably a big reason cPanel and Plesk still use Apache 1.3.3.
It’s being worked on by third parties who were working a little bit with Chris but I don’t think the Iworx staff are doing much with it right now. They can correct me if I’m wrong. (Do a search of these forums for more info on this)
If it was added I’m sure that the add/edit SiteWorx account screen (in NodeWorx) would allow you to decide if a particular account had access to them (just like every other feature), and there would be a screen in SiteWorx to install, uninstall, or reinstall the FrontPage extentions just like in cPanel and Plexk.
At this juncture I doubt it will be there by the time you indicated (4 months) but who knows. If someone comes up with a working solituon, I’m sure Chis et al a would be more than willing to take a look and if stable implement it.
Very interesting, as I am running Apache 2 on my Ensim 4 Pro box and it has Frontpage working on it. That now has me thinking I should just use my Ensim box for FrontPage customers. (Was hoping to get away from Ensim, but… if it works)