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: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Thu Feb 24 17:08:17 2005

[email protected] wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:

What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587?

Give a good reason. That is still the missing part.

If you're a roaming user from that provider, and you're at
some other site that blocks or hijacks port 25, you can still send
mail by tossing it to your main provider's 587. If that's not a
good enough reason to motivate the provider to support it, nothing
will (except maybe when the users show up en masse with pitchforks
and other implements of destruction...)

There seem to be many who feel there is no overwhelming reason to
support 587. I can certainly see that point of view, but I guess my
question is what reasons do those of you with that viewpoint have *not*
to implement it? I just don't see the harm in either configuring your
MTA to listen on an extra port, or just forward port 587 to 25 at the
network level. Other than a few man-hours for implementation what are
the added costs/risks that make you so reluctant? What am I missing?


What man hours? Thats the default setup for most sendmails!