Evan Cortens wrote: > I'm with you on this one Shawn... even if there intentions are honourable, > it's not really a practical solution for many people... > > I'm on Shaw as well... port 25 is still working for me... > > Just a quick question though, have people tried ports 465 and 587? Many > SMTP > servers operate on those ports as well... When I was on RCN (a cable > company > in Boston that blocked outgoing port 25), I found those two ports often > worked... It's enough to stop the bots, but still allows people to use > their > own external SMTP servers... > > I just tried those three ports on 2 different external SMTP servers; 25 and > 587 for both, 465 didn't work for either one...
587 is offically allocated for "submission only" SMTP transactions. According to specs, 587 is supposed to *require* authentication before accepting any email. And it's not a new thing, either. By default, sendmail (for example) has been enabling port 587 as a clone of 25 for years. Of course, what packagers do with the configuration is anyone's guess. I can't speak about other MTAs as I don't use them. However, as the network operator at a web/email hosting operation, I had 587 enabled about 5 years ago and had functioning authentication on it nearly that long ago as well. Port 465 is for the "smtps" protocol which almost nobody supports. (That's smtp over SSL for those not in the know.) -- William Astle finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for further information Geek Code V3.12: GCS/M/S d- s+:+ !a C++ UL++++$ P++ L+++ !E W++ !N w--- !D !M PS PE V-- Y+ PGP t+@ 5++ X !R tv+@ b+++@ !DI D? G e++ h+ y? _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
