On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole > > business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same > > authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25, > > thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection? > > Because that would require providers to act like professionals
I don't see what the big deal is. mx.justthe.net, for instance, requires SMTP AUTH on port 587 for everyone and requires SMTP AUTH on port 25 for anyone attempting to relay mail outside my network. The biggest cost I can see, and it *is* a significant cost, is walking users through the process of configuring their MUAs to do the authentication. Configuring the servers, however, shouldn't be a huge problem, and you can mitigate the cost issue by only setting up 587 for people who need to have it set up. -- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED "In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)
