North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mailproviders support Port 587?)

  • From: Steven J. Sobol
  • Date: Sat Feb 26 13:55:18 2005

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 [email protected] wrote:

> >  I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
> > business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
> > authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
> > thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection?
> Because that would require providers to act like professionals

I don't see what the big deal is., for instance, requires 
SMTP AUTH on port 587 for everyone and requires SMTP AUTH on port 25 for 
anyone attempting to relay mail outside my network.

The biggest cost I can see, and it *is* a significant cost, is walking 
users through the process of configuring their MUAs to do the 
authentication. Configuring the servers, however, shouldn't be a huge 
problem, and you can mitigate the cost issue by only setting up 587 for 
people who need to have it set up.

-- - Apple Valley, CA - - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor 
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large 
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)