Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

Fri Feb 25 07:53:21 UTC 2005

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:30:01 EST, Jim Popovitch said:

> Why not a VPN solution.  If you have mail servers that your users need,
> chances are that you also have file servers, internal web servers.
> calender servers, etc.

We're talking ISPs and other "mostly open" providers, not corporate nets.

Remember that a *big* part is the support nightmare of getting your 50,000
Joe Sixpack subscribers to pull down a menu and change a 25 to a 587.

And you intend to make them purchase, install, and configure a VPN?

>                         Should file/web/calender servers all open one
> port or internal access and a second port for authenticated external
> access?

Last I heard, if you have "public" and "internal" web content, Best Practices
says to put then not on different ports, but *different hosts* - the public
one out in your DMZ, and your internal one on your internal network.
-------------- 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/20050225/54bde347/attachment.sig>