On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
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?
E) Log into the webmail service my ISP provides. Opening another port can too easily turn into a whack-a-mole game between you, the spammers and ISPs. There are myriad ways to allow roaming/emergency E-mail activities. Let's not get pigeon-holed here. Finally, after a week or so of reading this thread, I'm inclined to believe it's officially a holy war. Nobody's changing anybody's minds here it seems. It's two stationary camps arguing. Can it stop now? --Gar
(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).