Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
Fri Feb 25 19:04:11 UTC 2005
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, andrew2 at one.net said:
> Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
> Trojans, viruses, etc. etc. etc. can still exploit the authentication
> system regardless of what port it operates on. Different port, same old
> problems.
It changes it only in that it becomes a *lot* easier for you to track down
which of your users has a compromised machine. (It's a lot easier to just look
at the Received: headers than have to take the hostname, chase it back through
your logs, and all that - especially if the user is roaming and just caught
something over their Aunt Tilly's unsecured wireless access point....)
-------------- 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/20050225/7395b30f/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list