On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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). > >