[78208] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Feb 25 00:34:10 2005
To: Jim Popovitch <jimpop@yahoo.com>
Cc: andrew2@one.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:14:17 EST."
<1109283257.27826.38.camel@blue>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:36:40 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1109306199_3960P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:14:17 EST, Jim Popovitch said:
>
> If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two ports
> is closer to y*2 than y (some might argue y-squared). 587 has some
> validity for providers of roaming services, but who else? Why not
> implement 587 behavior (auth from the outside coming in, and accept all
> where destin == this system) on 25 and leave the rest alone?
Well, OK. If you know for a *fact* that your users *never* roam, and you
have sufficiently good control of your IP addresses that you can always safely
decide if a given connection is "inside" or "outside" and allow them to relay
based on that, then no, you don't need to support 587.
The rest of us run mail services in the real world, where lots of users buy
laptops, and then actually <gasp, shock> *use* the portability and thus often
end up behind some other ISP's port-25 block.
--==_Exmh_1109306199_3960P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCHqtXcC3lWbTT17ARAoh5AKD8C6MqRe3sh7P3PfSeC2cSb3Ac9QCg6f0i
XRZWB5RUEC22eJ9oSOwt4eg=
=flji
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1109306199_3960P--
