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?
If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two ports is closer to y*2 than y (some might argue y-squared). 587 has some validity for providers of roaming services, but who else? Why not implement 587 behavior (auth from the outside coming in, and accept all where destin == this system) on 25 and leave the rest alone? -Jim P. On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 16:51 -0500, [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? > > Andrew >