The problem, I guess, is that if there is a "standard" port for SMTP
(25) and a "standard alternative" port for SMTP (587), then ISPs are
going to start blocking both.
And it's kinda irrelevant if mail programs are starting to suggest or
default to port 587, since it's ultimately up to the receiving server
if they accept email on port 587.
I think a combination of SPF and SRV records are probably the ultimate
answer to this.
- Colin
p.s. BTW, what email programs are defaulting to port 587 for outbound
mail?
On Mar 3, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
> At 3/3/04 12:42 PM, Bruce Dorland wrote:
>
>> Reseller's are using a combination of both sending mail through our
>> email
>> servers and that of the ISP. In such case where the ISP has blocked
>> external access for Port 25, we have a non-standard port available as
>> well
>> (Port 8025).
>
> FYI, RFC 2476 sets aside port 587 specifically for this purpose. Port
> 587
> is by design intended to not be blocked by ISPs, even if they block
> port
> 25 and other ports.
>
> Some newer mail programs are starting to suggest (or even default to)
> port 587, and this is likely to gain momentum as anti-spam measures
> such
> as SPF get more popular.
>
> Anyone using any non-standard ports for this should migrate to using
> port
> 587.
>
> --
> Robert L Mathews, Tiger Technologies http://www.tigertech.net/
>
> "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> -- Darwin
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:54 EDT