At 9:38 AM -0700 6/22/09, John R. Levine wrote:
> > The bootstrap question is addressed by requiring the end-user to know their
>> e-mail address and password. Based on the domain name, the implementation
>> would reach out to https://something.domain-name.tld and download the
>> relevant "schema"
The bootstrap question is addressed by requiring the end-user to know their
e-mail address and password. Based on the domain name, the implementation
would reach out to https://something.domain-name.tld and download the
relevant "schema" and data for IMAP, SMTP, POP3, etc, in ordered priority.
Ba
0:20 AM
To: 'frnk...@iname.com'; 'John Levine'; 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: RE: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?
It already is used by Microsoft. Do a google for +Microsoft +Autodiscover.
It is used by Outlook for Windows, Entourage for Mac, the iPhone and Window
--Original Message-
> From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:14 AM
> To: 'John Levine'; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?
>
> The bootstrap question is addressed by requiring the end-user to know
-
From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 9:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: frnk...@iname.com
Subject: Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?
>It's a pity that MAAWG or another group hasn't written a
>specification for the automatic download
>It's a pity that MAAWG or another group hasn't written a
>specification for the automatic downloading of configuration (with
>certificates, to be sure, for some kind of repudiation) and the
>update thereof, for adoption by the leading consumer e-mail clients.
MAAWG decided it's not in the standar
epudiation) and the update thereof, for adoption by the
leading consumer e-mail clients.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:54 AM
To: Sean Donelan
Cc: North American Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Is your ISP blocking o
>> On the other hand, why don't modern mail user agents and mail transfer
>> agents come configured to use MSA port 587 by default for message
>> submission instead of making customers remember anything?
> Better yet would be for the MUA to probe for the "best" configuration.
The iPhone mail app w
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP
port' in my previous comment ;-)
Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too,
clueless expands to fill any
Most MTAs don't come preconfigured with port 587 either. It is amazing
how many people/organizations go with the "if it isn't broke, don't fix
it" mentality, even though it clearly needs to be revised and something
new needs to be done/supported. Email needs to be revamped on a larger
scale than ju
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP port' in
my previous comment ;-)
Those same clueless ISPs will probably block 2525 someday too, clueless
expands to fill any void. And using non-
AT&T is the major one that I know of that is still enforcing this
policy.
But they said they can unblock port 25 upon request. I am not sure
how easy
it is.
It's trivial. A web form. You get the link when you try to send mail
to port 25 anywhere else. At least with Yahoo/SBC dsl.
I got
I am the ISP, and we currently don't. However, I inherited this setup and have
been slowly fixing glaring holes (those are fairly well gone now) and not so
glaring one. When our new firewall gets in, I will be rolling in port 25
blocks on dynamic IP addresses. The static ips will be unfiltered.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
> a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 connections
> through some sort of lame proxy that connects you to your intended host,
> but strips the AUTH field
> We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official SMTP
> ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.
for personal use, i have a box that has sshd running on 443 and i tunnel
2525 through it. that worked even in the narita red rug when they were
at their blo
Yes..
1. Customers remember it more easily
2. Some ISP's also block 587 (hence 'SMTP ports' rather then 'SMTP port'
in my previous comment ;-)
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
We just open port 2525
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any errors.
On Jun 19, 2009, at 8:53, Jeroen Wunnink wrote:
We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official
SMTP ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.
Is there any reason you do not use port 587, SUBMIT?
--
We just open port 2525 for customers from ISP's blocking official SMTP
ports so they can use their dedicated servers/domain mailservers.
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
SUBMIT
port
Christopher Morrow wrote:
in all seriousness, most isp's (consumer provider folk) today do some
form of blocking of port 25, if you are 'smart' enough to evade this
sort of thing, then you can still do email/blah. 99.999% of users are:
1) not interested in bypassing it
2) not clued into what's go
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
>> then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
>> SUBMIT
>> port [587] anyway...
>
> Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
> a big p
Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
Yes, it is standard practice for non-server accounts and most dynamic-only
accounts; only a
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 16:14 -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> then you should be shifting your userbase to authenticated on the
> SUBMIT
> port [587] anyway...
Except for those ISPs who choose to intercept port 587 as well. This is
a big problem with Rogers in Vancouver. They hijack port 587 connections
>I wonder which ISPs are still doing so. I know comcast has been doing
>that but they cancelled it after many complaints. It seems to be the
>same case for Verizon.
You're mistaken. Comcast most certainly does port 25 filtering,
although not necessarily on every line at every moment. So does
Ver
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 03:36:44PM -0400, Zhiyun Qian wrote:
> It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
> of reducing spam originated from their network.
Yes, it is standard practice for non-server accounts and most dynamic-only
accounts; only allow unauthentic
We don't force SSL but do have several SMTP servers they can use
-Original Message-
From: Charles Wyble [mailto:char...@thewybles.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:55 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Is your ISP blocking outgoing port 25?
Do you provide your users an SMTP serv
Do you provide your users an SMTP server to use, with some out bound
spam filtering?
It would seem this is to be expected, as you don't want your IP ranges
showing up on RBL filters.
Do you force SSL connectivity like AT&T does?
Paul Stewart wrote:
We still do it and never get any complaint
Zhiyun Qian wrote:
It has been long heard that many ISPs block outgoing port 25 for the purpose
of reducing spam originated from their network.
Well blocking or redirecting to there servers, which have an
undocumented filtering policy. All one needs to do in order to bypass
that is use a
We still do it and never get any complaints - we don't filter static IP
customers but dynamic customers can either use our SMTP relays or
alternate ports
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Zhiyun Qian [mailto:zhiy...@umich.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:37 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sub
28 matches
Mail list logo
