This just isn't that serious of a problem. You shouldn't be sending corporate email on port 25, so them blocking it is irrelevant. Port 587 (Submission) was designed for this long ago, and if you haven't moved to that, you should.
Port 25 should be for the server to receive email for local delivery. Port 587 should be used for relaying and similar. Basically any desktop client connection. This allows, as an example, email to be received on port 25 into a Barracuda prior to delivery. On port 587, connections need to be authenticated, and allow sending without wasting time going through the barracuda, because it's a valid sender. What Shaw is doing is right, particularly for residential customers. Corporate/Business email should have been set up like this long ago. If it isn't already, then it should be. I'd rate this about on par with mandating a firewall or AV on the windows desktop. As for blocking a class C, you're part of Shaw's class C. You've just been assigned a very small fraction of it, and therefore the subnet is broken down differently for you, locally, even though it's part of the same class C. All the subnet does is change routing, and only for small branches at that. Kev. -----Original Message----- From: sgrover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 6:28 PM To: CLUG General Subject: Re: [clug-talk] Did shaw shut down external ports? Soooo... Connecting your home email client to your business email server is now out of the question? (for sending). One day, Shaw will actually THINK about what they are doing and realize it just ain't gonna work.. :) I have a SOHO connection, so the moment they pull this for my line is the moment I move my business elsewhere. But even then, I still need to relay my outbound mail through Shaw's mail servers - otherwise my server is erroneously tagged as a "spamming server" by some of the RBLs (who are blocking Shaw's IPs with a class C subnet, even though my IP uses an abnormal subnet (.246 I think...) And the only reason they can be doing this is a) To help prevent outgoing spam. (admirable intent, but...) b) control of email services. Other big ISPs are no longer guaranteeing mail delivery unless the user signs up for a "premium" service. I suspect Shaw is gearing up to do something similar. My thoughts. Shawn Kin Wong wrote: > Just got a polite email this morning from Shaw indicating that we need to change our modems and that there has been a network policy change (i.e. if you are using port 25 for outgoing mail and it is not through Shaw's server, then you are sol). Somebody must be thinking it is only one port, what's the big deal. I think the date on the memo for for the 15 of next month, not that anyone has notice them playing with port 25 recently. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:07:26 AM (GMT-0700) America/Denver > Subject: Re: [clug-talk] Did shaw shut down external ports? > > Outbound works too, if you set up SHAW as a smarthost. > > Kev. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Wiltshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [clug-talk] Did shaw shut down external ports? > > I think it's only outbound. When I moved last month I was unable to > send mail until my static IP was set up. > > On Tuesday 12 June 2007 11:55, Jesse Kline wrote: >> Seeing as I got both these e-mails, they havn't cut port 25 yet. >> >> Jesse >> >>> I know for sure they are working on cutting port 25 for residential >>> customers. >>> It doesn't affect SOHO users though. >>> >>> On Tuesday 12 June 2007 11:50, Robert Campbell wrote: >>>> I have had to re-subscribe to this list using my gmail account so >>>> that I could ask this question..... Has shaw shut down access to >>>> internal ports (or is it just me?). >>>> >>>> I haven't rebooted my firewall (yet), but email is bouncing and I >>>> can't ssh into my server from an external host. >>>> >>>> So, is it just me, or is everybody experiencing this process? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
