On Wednesday 25 February 2004 1:47 pm, davila wrote:
> Alex, Jeremy, Michael and the rest,
> I just have to say that I have belonged to a number of email lists and this
> has to be the best one for signal to noise ratio.
> That being said, further investigations have lead me to some discoveries.
> I will share them with you briefly because the symptoms were a little
> confusing and lead me to think the problem was something other than what it
> actually is.
> This is one for the trouble shooting list that seems right up there with
> "Is it plugged in?"
> 1) After further testing I was able to determine that my smtp after pop3
> auth is working fine.
> 2) After questioning the owner of one lovely little cafe he gave me the
> email to his network person. He was able to quickly determine the root
> of the problem. The public network that I use when I am out at lovely
> little cafe's is personaltelco.net. personaltelco.net blocks outgoing
> traffic to port 25 on any machine in the world. They do this for good
> reason. Spam control. By blocking outgoing smtp traffic on all of their
> public nodes they eliminate the possibility of some less than honorable
> people sending out masses of UCE's through open/broken relays.
> 3) This network person thanked me for my information and is now informing
> personaltelco.net that one of their nodes is broken and ALLOWING
> outgoing smtp traffic. Personaltelco is fixing that since they don't
> want a bunch of spammers wearing Rush Limbaugh lapel pins sucking up
> their bandwidth and getting them listed in an rbl.
> Possible Solutions:
> 1) Destroy all spammers and take back our network
> 2) Write a small proxy listener that I can connect to and forward the
> traffic to my smtp server.
> 3) Continue being happy using my sqwebmail install when I am out a lovely
> little cafes
> Of the possible solutions 3 seems to be the easiest, 2 will be the one that
> I will probably do and 1 seems like the funnest.

Option 4:
run an additional smtp tcpserver on port 587 ( mail message submission )
Most likely they are not blocking port 587

Ken Jones

Reply via email to