[GH-ISSUE #293] Allow `allowed_users` without TLS when listening 127.0.0.1 #48

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-26 18:33:03 +03:00 by kerem · 4 comments

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:33:03 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @Necoro on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/decke/smtprelay/issues/293

I want to use smtprelay with allowed_users when it is running on a server listening on 127.0.0.1. As there is no incoming network connection, I don't use TLS. Unfortunately, this is blocked by smtprelay:

Local authentication (via allowed_users file) not allowed with non-TLS listener address=127.0.0.1:25

I understand the general rationale, but imho for 127.0.0.1 (and ::1) it should also be allowed. Alternatively, have a config option that allows to override this behavior.

Reason for enabling allowed_users: As the service sends emails via my mail account, I want to control strictly which services can send.

Originally created by @Necoro on GitHub (Dec 15, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/decke/smtprelay/issues/293 I want to use smtprelay with `allowed_users` when it is running on a server listening on 127.0.0.1. As there is no incoming network connection, I don't use TLS. Unfortunately, this is blocked by smtprelay: ``` Local authentication (via allowed_users file) not allowed with non-TLS listener address=127.0.0.1:25 ``` I understand the general rationale, but imho for 127.0.0.1 (and ::1) it should also be allowed. Alternatively, have a config option that allows to override this behavior. Reason for enabling `allowed_users`: As the service sends emails via my mail account, I want to control strictly which services can send.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:33:04 +03:00

Author

Owner

@DuCun commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

Perhaps we could try using a self-signed certificate.

@DuCun commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): Perhaps we could try using a self-signed certificate.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:33:04 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Necoro commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

Nah, I explicitly don't want that because the lack of official signing might lead to problems downstream.

@Necoro commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): Nah, I explicitly don't want that because the lack of official signing might lead to problems downstream.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:33:04 +03:00

Author

Owner

@Necoro commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025):

sigh The underlying smtpd-library has the same requirement.

@Necoro commented on GitHub (Dec 16, 2025): *sigh* The underlying smtpd-library has the same requirement.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 18:33:04 +03:00

Author

Owner

@decke commented on GitHub (Dec 20, 2025):

Yeah, this also seems to be a smtpd problem.

https://github.com/chrj/smtpd/issues/19

@decke commented on GitHub (Dec 20, 2025): Yeah, this also seems to be a smtpd problem. https://github.com/chrj/smtpd/issues/19