nanog mailing list archives
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: <andrew2 () one net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:45:40 -0500
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, andrew2 () one net said:Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that. Trojans, viruses, etc. etc. etc. can still exploit the authentication system regardless of what port it operates on. Different port, same old problems.It changes it only in that it becomes a *lot* easier for you to track down which of your users has a compromised machine. (It's a lot easier to just look at the Received: headers than have to take the hostname, chase it back through your logs, and all that - especially if the user is roaming and just caught something over their Aunt Tilly's unsecured wireless access point....)
Yes. Authenticated SMTP makes tracking down which of your users is doing the spamming easier. But you're assuming that SMTP AUTH isn't being used on port 25 already. You can do SMTP AUTH just as easily on port 25 without having to re-educate your users and still net the same simplified tracking procedures that you mention. It sounds to me like what we should really be talking about is getting MTA operators to begin using SMTP authentication of some kind (any kind!), rather than harping on whether or not MTA's should accept mail on port 587... Andrew
Current thread:
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?, (continued)
- 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? 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)
- Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) J.D. Falk (Feb 25)
- Re: The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)