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?

  • From: Jason Frisvold
  • Date: Tue Feb 15 22:24:42 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=paWgAtBviM9dpltTFglFj0WqOBfGdmp08UHH99A45vqApxlgbKu0ogw7d0QDhN7XNTSGVsBXw2/HzKBqALvLmTz5G74je36THP7XC17ULLW+WgHGBC3ROhZ/6z7qXQjibg1emO9R6t7D9QKlDMrFB7r8ultV6NbIVg9b0+Bg81s=

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:50:23 -0500, Daniel Golding
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Thor,
> 587 running SMTP auth (and relaying for authenticated users) and port 25 for
> local (non relay) delivery without authentication should be the default on
> all servers.

Agreed!  At the very least you get the benefit of an electronic trail
to follow if one of your users *is* spamming..  :)

If you only relay mail from authenticated users, drop (not bounce) any
mail destined for a non-existant account, and use reasonable spam
blocking and tagging, you should be able to reduce spam to a slow
trickle..  It's working here, thus far...  And I don't have
authentication fully implemented yet.  :)

> --
> Daniel Golding
> Network and Telecommunications Strategies
> Burton Group

Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
[email protected]