From: Jay Chandler (listssequestered.net)
Date: Fri Sep 21 2007 - 13:52:22 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 9/20/2007, Jay Chandler (listssequestered.net) wrote:
>> As Victor's said, 587 is the way to go. A network that blocks
>> outgoing 587 is either a high security corporate site, or the sign of
>> an admin in desperate need of a clue with regard to what he's doing...
>
> I'm assuming you meant 'incoming'? ;) Although I'd agree that it
> wouldn't be very useful to block outgoing port 587 either, unless you
> simply wanted to prevent anyone from using an outside smtp server, which
> certainly some corporate networks might have good reason to do.
>

Nah, I meant outgoing-- for instance, SBC and some other providers block
outbound 25 as a method for stopping spam emanating from their network.
  They might conceivably block a lot of stuff inbound if they have a "no
servers" clause in their contracts. I don't run mailservers on dynamic
IPs for obvious reasons, so it's never been something I bothered to look
into...

Aside from the corporate scenario you described, there'd be no reason
whatsoever to block outbound 587...

--
Jay Chandler / KB1JWQ
Living Legend / Systems Exorcist
Today's Excuse: high pressure system failure

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]