[78271] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Sat Feb 26 04:23:06 2005
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:22:24 -0500
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Hi Folks,
It's time to take this thread to SPAM-L or
some other spam oriented list.=20
Thanks in advance,
-M<
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure
hannigan@verisign.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> just me
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 5:26 PM
> To: Frank Louwers
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Frank Louwers wrote:
>=20
> The trick is to config port 587 in such a way that it ONLY accepts
> smtp-auth mail, not regular smtp.
> =20
> That way, virii/spam junk won't be able to use that port.
>=20
> What are you, stupid? The spammers have drone armies of machines=20
> with completely compromised operating systems. What makes you think=20
> that their mail credentials will be hard to obtain? =20
>=20
> matt ghali
>=20
> --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
> The only thing necessary for the triumph
> of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
>=20
