[78196] 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 17:21:14 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:16:14 -0500
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050224215241.3EF9F185A@testbed9.merit.edu>; from andrew2@one.net on Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:51:50PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:51:50PM -0500, andrew2@one.net wrote:
> There seem to be many who feel there is no overwhelming reason to
> support 587. I can certainly see that point of view, but I guess my
> question is what reasons do those of you with that viewpoint have *not*
> to implement it? I just don't see the harm in either configuring your
Oh thats easy: It creates costs (for implementing it
on the servers and clients) and produces no benefit.
> MTA to listen on an extra port, or just forward port 587 to 25 at the
> network level. Other than a few man-hours for implementation what are
> the added costs/risks that make you so reluctant? What am I missing?
You are missing the operational costs (has to be included in the regular
failover tests, has to be monitored, has to be fixed if something breaks
etc.)
Any system I introduce is increasing risks and costs. If there is
no benefit to justify these, I won't do it.
Nils
