nanog mailing list archives
Re: Lazy network operators
From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels () cistron nl>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:50:38 +0000 (UTC)
In article <cistron.407D01BB.90708 () he iki fi>, Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi> wrote:
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:That was solved 6 years ago. You let them use port 587 instead of 25. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.htmlHow many MUAs default to port 587?
The one I use daily does.
How many even know about 587 and give it as an option other than fill-in-the-blank?
Setting up authenticated SMTP in most MUAs is an order of a magnitude more complicated than changing port 25 to 587 anyway.
...back to the computer literacy requirement again... How many support calls you get by requiring 587 instead of 25?
I don't know, but we get a lot of support calls about spam and viruses, so if we can cut back on those .. But the subject is still spot-on: not moving customers to port 587 for mail submission because it would be "too hard" is laziness on the part of the ISP. Mike.
Current thread:
- Re: Lazy network operators, (continued)
- Re: Lazy network operators Miquel van Smoorenburg (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Alex Bligh (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators John Curran (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Todd Vierling (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Miquel van Smoorenburg (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Joe Maimon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators E.B. Dreger (Apr 15)
- RE: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Petri Helenius (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 14)
- RE: Lazy network operators Vivien M. (Apr 14)
- RE: Lazy network operators Michael . Dillon (Apr 14)
- Re: Lazy network operators Daniel Senie (Apr 14)