nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls () NetBSD org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:36:11 +0000
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:23:04AM +0000, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Quite useful when it works (read: the other party has implemented AUTH-SMTP on port 587).
And if they's implemented unauthenticated SMTP on port 587, like, say, Sendmail, you've achieved nothing, or possibly worse, since you have encouraged people to simply run open relays on a different port than 25. How long do you think it's going to take for spammers to take advantage of this? (That's a rhetorical question: I already see spam engines trying to open port 587 connections in traces). Slavishly changing ports isn't the solution. Actually using authentication is the solution. It is silly -- to say the least -- to confuse the benefits of the two. Thor
Current thread:
- Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Sean Donelan (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Daniel Golding (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jason Frisvold (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Owen DeLong (Feb 16)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 16)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Todd Vierling (Feb 17)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Todd Vierling (Feb 19)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)