[78030] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chip Mefford)
Wed Feb 16 09:58:13 2005
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:59:12 -0500
From: Chip Mefford <cpm@well.com>
To: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@NetBSD.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050216021655.GB12411@NetBSD.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
| On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
|
|>Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
|>its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
|>for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say
|>click here for Port 587 during the Windows installer, its too
|>complicated).
|
|
| This is utterly silly. Running another full-access copy of the MTA
| on a different port than 25 achieves precisely nothing --
Actually, it achives a number of things.
First that comes to mind is to allow road-warriors
to establish tls conections with the home mta
by side-stepping hote and hotspot style mta proxies.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCE1/A0STXFHxUucwRAnzPAJ9dqTukhoF7fNpzZjTMAqRe7DunoQCaApJw
h0/sB5P5205mmBp/+ZNfO4k=
=G/2V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
