On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:14 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote: > 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?
I did run into a case where supporting port 587 was useful. I found out the hard way that one Internet service provider for hotels blocked outbound port 25, but not 587. So sending outbound mail to my mail relay would have been impossible without support for port 587. -- Smoot Carl-Mitchell System/Network Architect email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: +1 602 421 9005 home: +1 480 922 7313
