Thank you all for your insightful replies.
Sam.
On 15/01/2020 15:24, Bill Cole wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2020, at 7:56, Sam Tuke wrote:
>
>> I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are typically
>> sent from servers which have port 25 closed.
>>
>> Is it common practice to close
On 15 Jan 2020, at 7:56, Sam Tuke wrote:
I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are
typically sent from servers which have port 25 closed.
Is it common practice to close port 25 on bulk sending servers?
Yes, and not only for bulk sending servers.
Should we do this for
On 15 Jan 2020, at 05:56, Sam Tuke wrote:
> I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are typically
> sent from servers which have port 25 closed.
And this is an issue why?
> Is it common practice to close port 25 on bulk sending servers? Should we do
> this for Postfix
> Maybe the MTAs that such senders use are so customised as to be capable
> of only sending, not receiving, mail?
Usually, yes, these systems are typically decoupled from the firms'
"regular" emailing infrastructure (maintained by different business
units etc.) and aren't interested in receiving
On 15.01.20 12:56, Sam Tuke wrote:
I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are typically sent
from servers which have port 25 closed.
I guess they are not mail servers. Not all servers have to receive mail.
Many companies have different servers for incoming mail than for
I noticed that newsletters which I receive from large firms are typically sent
from servers which have port 25 closed.
Is it common practice to close port 25 on bulk sending servers? Should we do
this for Postfix servers which serve the same role? What's the advantage?
Maybe the MTAs that such
