nanog mailing list archives
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: <andrew2 () one net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:17:35 -0500
owner-nanog () merit edu wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:02:20PM -0700, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:14 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two ports is closer to y*2 than y (some might argue y-squared). 587 has some validity for providers of roaming services, but who else? Why not implement 587 behavior (auth from the outside coming in, and accept all where destin == this system) on 25 and leavethe rest alone?I did run into a case where supporting port 587 was useful. I found out the hard way that one Internet service provider for hotels blocked outbound port 25, but not 587. So sending outbound mail to my mail relay would have been impossible without support for port 587.It's so funny. On this list many argued Port 25 outgoing must be blocked only to notice, that users actually seem to need it to send mail. Now we must configure our mailservers to listen on 587 to circumvent these filters, that were stupid in the first place. Now to my prophecy mode: Spammers will start using 587 to spam, which we then also all block outgoing, notice again that customers still want to send mail and open another port ... 652 maybe. But this in a "while (true)" loop until we run out of ports.
That's being a bit disingenuous. The discussion here hasn't been to open up port 587 to relay for all comers, but rather to open it up for authenticated use only. If spammers start using it, then it's a result of either poor authentication security or an understaffed abuse department. I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25, thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection? Andrew
Current thread:
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?, (continued)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Florian Weimer (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Maimon (Feb 24)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jim Popovitch (Feb 24)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Smoot Carl-Mitchell (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Maimon (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Christopher X. Candreva (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Provo (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 24)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Sean Donelan (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Edward B. Dreger (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jason Frisvold (Feb 25)