nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: "Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:54:20 +0000 (GMT)
jm> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:25:48 -0800 (PST) jm> From: just me jm> What are you, stupid? The spammers have drone armies of machines jm> with completely compromised operating systems. What makes you think jm> that their mail credentials will be hard to obtain? Internal users: With AUTH - correlate message with authenticated user, then forbid mail transmission for them only. I'd rather do that than slog through RADIUS logs. But, hey, maybe if I had more free time... External users: They must send mail somehow. If saying "You roam? Use this port!" is too difficult, try explaining multiple profiles. Short of using 25/TCP on the service provider's network (which could be amusing for those using wholesale dialup providers), users need some way to pass email. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc () brics com -*- jfconmaapaq () intc net -*- sam () everquick net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
Current thread:
- The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)), (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Niels Bakker (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Steven J. Sobol (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Eric A. Hall (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Frank Louwers (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? just me (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? just me (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? Edward B. Dreger (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? just me (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? J.D. Falk (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? just me (Feb 25)
- 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? Adrian Chadd (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (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? Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 25)