From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 05:37:32 -0700, Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP as
a server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the
server by extending POP/IMAP to send email. It created an authenticated
connection back to the server where the POP/IMAP server hands it off to
the SMTP server. That way email clients aren't using the same protocol
as email servers.
I think part of the problem is that the receiving SMTP server can't tell
if email is coming from another SMTP server or a virus infected spam zombie.
Our MTA has the facility to assign an alternate SMTP port, this is
used for customers to send mail in. The main port 25 still operates as
normal for server to server, and more often than not spammer to server
traffic.
Though the facility was originally introduced to get around certain
ISP's blocking port 25 off network and those that use a proxy. In
many, many cases the proxies don't forward the auth info and
legitimate sender mail consequently bounces.
The added bonus for us is that legitimate local users are never
competing with spammers for sockets.
Nigel
I think what you are doing is a step in the right direction. But imagine
if the users IMAP connection could be used to send mail back up the link
then you wouldn't need to do SMTP to the users at all. All you would
have to do is configure a way for the IMAP server to hand outgoing email
off to the SMTP server.
Use the submission port, 587, with authentication. Forcing users to
IMAP is "a bad thing". (It fouls up my rather elaborate sorting
processes due to limitations in the IMAP concepts.) It's bad enough
explaining to Great-Granny about how to handle POP3 and SMTP AUTH.
Explaining IMAP on top of it all is pushing things a little, doncha
think?
{O.O}
