[78224] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (andrew2@one.net)
Fri Feb 25 08:50:43 2005
From: <andrew2@one.net>
To: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, <andrew2@one.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:49:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200502250030.j1P0UAlH005216@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:51:50 EST, andrew2@one.net said:
>
>> 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 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 *don't* want to just forward 587 to 25. You want to to
> use SMTP AUTH or similar on 587 to make sure only *your*
> users connect to it as a mail injection service (unless, of
> course, you *want* to be a spam relay ;)
I guess my assumption was that SMTP AUTH was already configured on port
25. :-) That's how we're doing it -- I've opened up port 587 more as a
move to help roaming users get around port 25 blocks imposed by various
ISP's around the country than anything else. For us it was a fairly
trivial change to make, which is why I was inquiring as to the apparent
strenuous reluctance on the part of some to do the same.
Andrew
