nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:12:08 +0100 (CET)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I am against port blocking as much as the next guy, I just see port 587 as a disaster waiting to happen. ISP provided email credentials are universally transmitted in plain text. If an (insert any ISP here) employee can be arrested for selling email addresses to spammers, what keeps them from collecting and selling 587 credentials?
If you limit port 587 sending to let's say 1000 email per day you probably cover 99.9% of all normal users, and you're very likely to catch the spammers abusing an account. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
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 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? Eric A. Hall (Feb 25)
- 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 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Paul Vixie (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Andrew - Supernews (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Robert L Mathews (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jim Popovitch (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Bob Martin (Feb 15)