Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:33 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > > If you're doing the "right" thing, sending email via encrypted,
> > > authenticated mechanisms, then you're doing it TCP ports 587 or 443.
> > > Where Mike's mechanism obstructs you not at all.
> > Depends. Some hotel admins aren't so bright. That's the problem. Not
> > everyone hears block outbound SMTP on port 25, they hear block outbound
> > SMTP and stop listening. Boom, 25, 465, 587 all get turned off.
>
> Sure. But that's not Mike's mechanism. It's ignorant hotel guy's
> mechanism. Don't penalize Mike because some other fool does something
> similar but wrong.
Mike recommends a tactic that leads to idiot hotel admins doing bad things.
You bet I'll criticize it for that.

His mechanism breaks things anyway. I'll criticize it for that too.

> > > If you're still doing the wrong thing, trying to talk to remote SMTP
> > > servers on TCP port 25, why should his mechanisms not punish you?
> >
> > It's not wrong to talk to them on port 25. It's wrong to allow unauthenticated
> > remote users to send on your own port 25 for relay purposes.
>
> Sure it is. Same way it's wrong to have an open relay or an unsecured
> proxy. It isn't 1995 any more.

As I said, we can agree to disagree about what is wrong. I know your position.
I still don't agree with it.

Owen