North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
J.D. Falk wrote: On 03/01/05, David Lesher <[email protected]> wrote: Exactly. If a provider runs an open 587 port, and thus gets used as spam Ditto. It makes no sense for clued ISPs to block 587. That 587 should be provisioned for unauthorized connections, or that clued ISPs should block 587 are both suggestions that make no sense.In either case, why will the clued ISP's want to block 587? I think the anti-587 logic here seems to be that we (we being the Internet community at large) shouldn't encourage anyone to ever act more responsibly than the worst operator because thatI'm not sure that I agree with this translation. I don't see *any* logic, just FUD as an excuse for failing to become educated about which problems 587 can help solve, the reduced problems that will exist when 587 is properly implemented by most networks, learning how easy it is to properly implement 587, educating your users about the benefits of using 587, etc. We saw all these same types of arguments (arguments due to implementation ignorance and fear of the support costs)10 years ago when we were trying to get networks to close open relays. In any case, nobody has expressed any new ideas around this Or take this topic to spam-l - where I feel it belonged in the first place. jc
|