[78251] 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 14:04:50 2005
To: andrew2@one.net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST."
<20050225175652.9ED0F1860@testbed9.merit.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:04:11 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1109358251_6281P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, andrew2@one.net said:
> Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
> Trojans, viruses, etc. etc. etc. can still exploit the authentication
> system regardless of what port it operates on. Different port, same old
> problems.
It changes it only in that it becomes a *lot* easier for you to track down
which of your users has a compromised machine. (It's a lot easier to just look
at the Received: headers than have to take the hostname, chase it back through
your logs, and all that - especially if the user is roaming and just caught
something over their Aunt Tilly's unsecured wireless access point....)
--==_Exmh_1109358251_6281P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCH3aqcC3lWbTT17ARAor5AKCdbeQkz7NYAFKGz9/m+U/QnjfmxgCdGfyi
IfwNuy7Y/ew6hxh4oTR2o+M=
=LbTY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1109358251_6281P--
