[78189] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nils Ketelsen)
Thu Feb 24 16:41:44 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:40:05 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200502242120.j1OLKXuR012631@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>; from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu on Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:20:33PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:20:33PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > > What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
> > > with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587?
> > Give a good reason. That is still the missing part.
> If you're a roaming user from that provider, and you're at some other
> site that blocks or hijacks port 25, you can still send mail by tossing
> it to your main provider's 587. If that's not a good enough reason to
And if I am a roaming user at some other site, that blocks or hijacks port
587?
> motivate the provider to support it, nothing will (except maybe when the
> users show up en masse with pitchforks and other implements of
> destruction...)
Then, I believe, nothing will motivate me.
Nils
