[71165] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Charter blocking Port 25
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Thu Jun 10 11:31:07 2004
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org>
Cc: matthew zeier <mrz@velvet.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0406101027020.4203@server.duh.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:26:35 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--=-HmS4Pg53Ul/yJjdzMxBg
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 16:28, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, matthew zeier wrote:
>=20
> : But this is different - I'm not running a mail server -on- my Cox
> : connection. I'm running one external to Cox but I can't connect to
> : port 25 on it.
>=20
> That's why port 587 was invented. It's the MSA (mail *submission* agent)
> port, intended only for initial injection of mail into the SMTP delivery
> network. Learn it, believe it, use it. 8-)
Mail *SPAM* Agent? ;) when spammers also start probing for that port...
A site that has a bad port 25 policy also will likely also have a bad
MSA policy. MSA's can also be open relays just like standard port 25.
Splitting submission from transfer seems like a good idea though, but
in the light of good MTA's, so that the MSA don't need to add a handfull
of headers and also SMTP-AUTH and TLS it doesn't make much difference.
Requiring *Authentication*, may that be on 25 or 587, is the way to go
here... but then still that 'neighbor' will have a misconfig and spam
straight away. Not even talking about the bots.
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-HmS4Pg53Ul/yJjdzMxBg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBAyH2qKaooUjM+fCMRAohGAJ0a8/Epz65oddlQivznc+/bz9DcngCgut1x
p3n8dkSu8s7yv3jjgsC9wyU=
=eb/G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-HmS4Pg53Ul/yJjdzMxBg--
