Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

[David Lesher <wb8foz () nrk com>]

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> Okay, the main difference seems to be:
>
> 1. People here trust, that mailservers on port 587 will have
> better configurations than mailservers on port 25 have today. I
> do not share this positive attitude.

Well, is authenticated SMTP 587 going to be worse than open port 25?
I doubt it, but... In fact, I think most folks will do way
better. Call that blind faith in the inhabitants of Middle Earth
^H^H^H NANOG....


> 2. Port 587 Mailservers only make sense, when other Providers block
> port 25. My point is: If my ISP blocks any outgoing port, he is no longer
> an ISP I will buy service from. Therefore I do not need a 587-Mailserver,
> as I do not use any ISP with Port 25-Blocking for connecting my sites or
> users.

So you will choose hotels, conferences, etc, by whether or not they
block 25? 

And coming soon.. airlines! 

        "That's right: aisle seat, low-sodium meal 
         and NO port 25 blocking..."

I do well to find out if the above has access at all, esp. if dealing
through a reseller [hotels.com, etc].



-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz () nrk com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433