[78337] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Lesher)
Tue Mar 1 15:54:24 2005
X-Original-To: wb8foz@panix.com
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@nrk.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu (nanog list)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:55:22 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <4224CF45.4020103@wibble.co.uk> from "Chris Horry" at Mar 01, 2005 03:23:33 PM
Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> Yes, right up until a) ISPs wise up and start blocking port 587, and
> then 465 for good measure. or b) malware authors wise up. B will
> happen sooner.
>
> Chris
Well, I'm no player in this league and ask...
Why will ISP's ""wise up"" and block 587?
If 587 is always auth'ed; then there will be no spam splashback
provoking calls to block it. (Individual customers may get
zombied; but that's easy to track and treat...)
If a provider runs an open 587 port, and thus gets used as spam
source; they will soon meet Mr. Linford and/or Mr. SPEWS.
In either case, why will the clued ISP's want to block 587?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
