[78321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 1 09:45:52 2005
To: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen@kuehne-nagel.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:18:19 EST."
<20050301091819.A9765@torzimon.ca.int.kn>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:43:19 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1109688199_5227P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:18:19 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
> 2. Port 587 Mailservers only make sense, when other Providers block
> port 25. My point is: If my ISP blocks any outgoing port, he is no longer
> an ISP I will buy service from.
That's not when you need a port 587 server...
> Therefore I do not need a 587-Mailserver,
> as I do not use any ISP with Port 25-Blocking for connecting my sites or
> users.
Port 587 is for when you take your laptop along to visit your grandparents,
and they have cablemodem from an ISP that blocks port 25. Now which do you do:
1) Whine at your grandparents about their choice of ISP?
2) Not send the mail you needed to send?
3) Make a long-distance (possibly international-rates) call to your ISP's dialup pool?
4) Send it back to your own ISP's 587 server and be happy?
(Hint - there's probably a good-sized niche market in offering business-class
mailhosting for people stuck behind port-25 blocks - they submit via 587/STARTTLS
and retrieve via POP/IMAP over SSL).
--==_Exmh_1109688199_5227P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFCJH+HcC3lWbTT17ARAq/SAKCezpW7fq7pDVEVviCoc+tGP15+MgCfRBci
ruaZCP+eKSbbJtmw0LoGpd8=
=GB54
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1109688199_5227P--
