From: Michael G (no email)
Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 11:28:19 EST
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 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).
>
>
|
|
|