North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
- From: JC Dill
- Date: Tue Mar 01 18:06:06 2005
J.D. Falk wrote:
On 03/01/05, David Lesher <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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.
It makes no sense for clued ISPs to block 587. That 587 should be
provisioned for unauthorized connections, or that clued ISPs should
block 587 are both suggestions that make no sense.
In either case, why will the clued ISP's want to block 587?
I think the anti-587 logic here seems to be that we (we being
the Internet community at large) shouldn't encourage anyone to
ever act more responsibly than the worst operator because that
I'm not sure that I agree with this translation. I don't see *any*
logic, just FUD as an excuse for failing to become educated about which
problems 587 can help solve, the reduced problems that will exist when
587 is properly implemented by most networks, learning how easy it is to
properly implement 587, educating your users about the benefits of using
587, etc. We saw all these same types of arguments (arguments due to
implementation ignorance and fear of the support costs)10 years ago when
we were trying to get networks to close open relays.
worst operator will continue to be irresponsible.
(I am only translating, not agreeing.)
In any case, nobody has expressed any new ideas around this
topic for about a week, so I'd suggest we let it drop before
somebody mis-represents Godwin's Law.
Or take this topic to spam-l - where I feel it belonged in the first place.