Gustin Johnson wrote: > Even though I have provided a work around (the ports 587 and 465) for my > clients, how long until the spammers begin to use these ports as well? > At best this policy of Shaw's provides short term respite while doing > nothing to combat the actual problem. I would rather they spend our > money more effectively.
587 is not supposed to accept anything at all unless it is authenticated. If you've simply deployed it as a clone of port 25, you should probably consider changing it to require authentication and not accept local mail delivery (unless it's authenticated of course). Assuming[1] the majority of people deploy 587 correctly (authenticated submissions only), there's no percentage for the spammers to switch to using it. And yes, I am practicing what I preach here; my servers do require authentication on port 587. It was a trivial[2] configuration change. All that said, as has been pointed out recently, there is really no gain to arguing about the merits of Shaw's policy. Even NANOG[3] differs[4] on whether that's a good idea. I now return you to your regularly scheduled list traffic. [1] Yes, we all know what happens when you assume [2] It required reading documentation on sendmail and adding a single flag to the port options for 587. If you're using something else, it should be the same process. Read the documentation and then implement it. [3] North American Network Operators Group (www.nanog.org) [4] has flame wars about -- 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
