kmedcalf at dessus.com
Wed Sep 3 19:34:12 CDT 2008
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:53PM -0400, Nicholas Suan wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> > >You're forgetting that 587 *is authenticated, always*.
> > I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference since the
> > usual spam vector is malware that has (almost) complete
> > control of the machine in the first place.
> Well, that depends on MUA design, of course, but it's just
> been pointed out to me that the RFC says MAY, not MUST.
> Does anyone bother to run an MSA on 587 and *not* require
Why would the requirements for authentication be different depending on the port used to connect to the MTA?
No matter how a session comes into the MTA (port 25, 465, 587, anything else) and no matter whether it is encrypted or not, the requirement for authentication (which is always available and advertized), is based on a simple policy:
- local delivery originating from a non-blacklisted or "internal/customer" address does not require authentication;
- relay from "internal/customer" IP Addresses does not require authentication;
- any connection from a blacklisted IP requires authentication or no mail will be accepted;
- relay from "external/non-customer" IP Addresses requires authentication;
Is there a valid reason why a different configuration is justified?
As an aside, outbound port 25 traffic is also blocked except from the MTA.
More information about the NANOG