Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

Wed Feb 16 17:18:19 UTC 2005

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:46:09 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> 
> --==========04787AC3A7FDFBF67AA5==========
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> Um, you actually have to work somewhat to get sendmail to support
> unauthenticated submission on port 587.  The default configuration
> is that port 25 is unauthenticated (albeit with some restrictions
> on relaying (only for local clients)) and port 587 is authenticated.
> 
> As such, I'm not sure why you seem to think that sendmail on port 587
> is unauthenticated.

Umm.. because the Sendmail 8.13.3 tree has this:

(from cf/README):
----
If DAEMON_OPTIONS is not used, then the default is

        DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=smtp, Name=MTA')
        DAEMON_OPTIONS(`Port=587, Name=MSA, M=E')
----
from doc/op/op.me:

That is, one way to specify a message submission agent (MSA) that
always requires authentication is:
.(b
O DaemonPortOptions=Name=MSA, Port=587, M=Ea
.)b

Hmm.. no default 'a' to require authentication by default.

That would probably explain why you actually have to work to set it up.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20050216/9b68b13e/attachment.sig>