nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 07:32:16 -0500
[Note reply-to] On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:45:40PM -0500, andrew2 () one net wrote:
Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, andrew2 () one net said:Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
[snip]
Yes. Authenticated SMTP makes tracking down which of your users is doing the spamming easier. But you're assuming that SMTP AUTH isn't being used on port 25 already. You can do SMTP AUTH just as easily on
[snip] You do not authenticate every transaction on 25, else you wouldn't be getting any smtp from the real world. The point is that you can trivially sort "must be authenticated" vs "is unknown" as opposed to inspecting messages on "dunno if might be anything" port. Reducing the problem space is always a Good Thing. The real funny thing is that o started to write back to the earlier incarnation of this thread. Pasted below because it still applies. I'd rephrase Sean's question as 'why do so few SMALL mail providers [...]'. Bluntly, if AOL/etc can do it with their customer base then the 'bad' laziness is the only reason not to do so, or to rgue against those who wish to do so. On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip] Seans rhetorical subject line was answered quite adequately by the rampant ignorance in the knee-jerk responses of those who have obviously not read the RFC in its many years of availability, thought about the consequences, nor been down the road of implementation. Rather than armchair nattering, come to the discussion prepared or sit on the sidelines and observe. If you haven't done your homework, you are Not Tall Enough To Ride This Ride and go to the queue for the spinning teacups. The beauty of what we've all been building for all these years is it is all documented; given a brain and desire you can go from clueless to clueful purely through self-educating. If you are expecting to be spood-fed then please return to the flow charts and MOPs of vendor certifications. Questions regarding the spec, document, implementations thereof are useful and have popped up, but in general there's a really sad trend of uninformed chattering. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Current thread:
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?, (continued)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jim Popovitch (Feb 24)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Smoot Carl-Mitchell (Feb 24)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (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? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? andrew2 (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Christopher X. Candreva (Feb 25)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Joe Provo (Feb 26)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Sean Donelan (Feb 25)
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Edward B. Dreger (Feb 26)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jason Frisvold (Feb 25)
- Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Michael . Dillon (Feb 25)
- The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) J.D. Falk (Feb 25)
- Re: The Terrible Secret of MAAWG (was Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)) Suresh Ramasubramanian (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Niels Bakker (Feb 25)
- Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?) Steven J. Sobol (Feb 26)