At 10:59 AM 7/2/2005, you wrote:
Well, I can't say I didn't do the the same thing until recently. I chose my own secret port number to bypass a port 25 block. Blocking port 25 is becoming a major reality now. I was merely saying that there is a standard way to allow things to happen. You will see back there at Matt Simerson's site that he is now getting qmail to effectively listen on SMTP and submission ports to start abinding by the RFC for roaming users.

Since it is a rather new phenonimon, not many know about it, but as more ISP's block and more mail providers (like you and I) try to avoid these issues, the port 587 number will become fairly well-known. And, by the way, in the case of a clueless user anyway, one port number is just as hard as another to use, as they will need a lot of handholding to setup their client. And for those who get the idea, port 587 will eventually be memorable.

We weren't around when the RFC got written, or we might have tried for a smarter port number. In any case, I only feel that once I catch a clue, I might as well start using the right port number. I just opened up both the one I picked and 587, and determined to stick with the published standard unless necessary. Rumors persist that some ISP's might block port 587, but that is mostly hearsay.

yep, all good points. it certainly won't *hurt* anything for me to fire up another smtp on the submission port.

as it is, the ports for mail i see codified are:

25  SMTP
465 SMTP-SSL (but shared with cisco's URD)
587 Submission
110 POP3
143 IMAP4

eek. i suppose for the average user, they're *all* random numbers, really.

Paul Theodoropoulos

Reply via email to