nanog mailing list archives
Re: ingress SMTP
From: Chris Boyd <cboyd () gizmopartners com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 16:53:28 -0500
On Sep 3, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I would like to point my customers to port 587, but that kind of configuration is still in its infancy.
We're a small managed services provider, and we started doing authenticated SMTP with TLS on port 587 six years ago. It's at least in kindergarten :-)
Once we explain the advantages, our customers love it since their email "just works" pretty much wherever they go.
As a former manager for a small resnet, blocking port 25 outbound is A Good Thing. Cut abuse email down by a huge factor.
--Chris
Current thread:
- Re: ingress SMTP, (continued)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 13)
- RE: ingress SMTP Frank Bulk (Sep 13)
- Re: ingress SMTP Alec Berry (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Stephen Sprunk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Simon Waters (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Justin Scott (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Daniel Senie (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Chris Boyd (Sep 03)
- Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Michael Thomas (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? Charles Wyble (Sep 03)
- Re: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 03)
- RE: Why not go after bots? (was: ingress SMTP) Frank Bulk (Sep 03)
- Re: ingress SMTP Steven Champeon (Sep 03)