Outgoing SMTP Servers

Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 07:55:04 CDT 2011


My point exactly, I am perfectly happy authenticating and relaying
through either my MX at the office or with Google's SMTP server. But I
just can't do that if SMTPoSSL ports are blocked by some lazy net
admin.

And I definitely hate it when I have to "pay" (in terms of delay and
overhead) the price of a VPN in order to just send a couple of emails.

cheers

Carlos

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Dennis Burgess <dmburgess at linktechs.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm curious how a traveller is supposed to get SMTP relay service when, well,
>> travelling. I am not really sure if I want a VPN for sending a simple email.
>>
>> And I can understand (although I am not convinced that doing so is such a
>> great idea) blocking 25/tcp outgoing, as most botnets will try that method of
>> delivery. However, I do believe that outgoing 465 SHOULD always be
>> allowed.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>
> [dmb] This is the exact question, why, do you NEED a SMTP Relay on ANY network.  Your domain has a mail server out on the net that if you authenticate to, I am sure will relay your mail, and the reverse DNS and SPF records would match then as well.  Why does the local internet provide NEED to relay though their server, regardless of the port.
>
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn at mork.no> wrote:
>> > Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> It's both unacceptable in my opinion and common. There are even those
>> >> misguided souls that will tell you it is best practice, though
>> >> general agreement, even among them seems to be that only 25/tcp
>> >> should be blocked and that
>> >> 465 and 587 should not be blocked.
>> >
>> > It is definitely considered best practice in some areas.  See e.g.
>> > http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://ikt-norge.no/wp-c
>> > ontent/uploads/2010/10/bransjenorm-SPAM.pdf
>> > (couldn't find an english original, but the google translation looks
>> > OK)
>> >
>> > The document is signed by all major ISPs in Norway as well as the
>> > Norwegian research and education network operator, so it must be
>> > considered a local "best practice" whether you like it or not.
>> >
>> > Note that only port 25/tcp is blocked and that some of the ISPs offer
>> > a per-subscriber optout.
>> >
>> > Eh, this was the Northern Aurope NOG, wasn't it?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Bjørn
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> =========================
>> Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
>> http://www.labs.lacnic.net
>> =========================
>
>
>



-- 
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
http://www.labs.lacnic.net
=========================



More information about the NANOG mailing list