[78190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 24 16:43:54 2005
To: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST."
<20050224160842.A25810@torzimon.ca.int.kn>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:20:33 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1109280033_3913P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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 motivate
the provider to support it, nothing will (except maybe when the users show up
en masse with pitchforks and other implements of destruction...)
--==_Exmh_1109280033_3913P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCHkUhcC3lWbTT17ARAse6AJwMRxf5PN3yhv88poP5n5QJpD3w3QCg/A5B
Q6HVKhw1SaMOwFqxv/SpSm4=
=POBQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1109280033_3913P--
