nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?
From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen () mompl net>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 18:01:43 -0700
Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
This DID actually bite my company about 3 years ago. A customer went to China (usually in NYC) and could not send email through the mail server because they were using POP-before-SMTP instead of the mail submission port .
The problem did not lie with blocking IPs. But with offering a flawed service such as pop before smtp to begin with. I know many ISPs/ESPs still do, much to my chagrin. The only way to submit email should be port 587 with TLS encryption, 3 years ago one could be forgiven for offering deprecated (*) port 465 with SSL, but not anymore (msoft clients have been fixed).
Regards, Jeroen http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers * urd 465/tcp URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
Current thread:
- RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?, (continued)
- RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? goemon (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Larry Smith (Apr 08)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Michael Holstein (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Benjamin BILLON (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jeroen van Aart (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Benjamin Billon (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jeroen van Aart (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Benjamin Billon (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jim Burwell (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Patrick Giagnocavo (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jeroen van Aart (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Rich Kulawiec (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jeroen van Aart (Apr 09)
- RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Warren Bailey (Apr 09)
- RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Jim Templin (Apr 09)
- Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 08)