Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

Sat Feb 26 07:01:41 UTC 2005

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
  On 02/25/05, just me <matt at snark.net> wrote: 

  > Increasing the detail of an audit trail doesnt mean anyone will 
  > automatically use the information in an effective manner.
  > 
  > Without auth, most ISPs could correlate abuse behavior between MTA 
  > logs and RADIUS logs, if they cared. Most don't. SMTP AUTH won't 
  > change that.  

  	I don't get it, Matt.  Are you trying to tell us that because 
  	some ISP's don't care, the ISP's who /do/ care /shouldn't/ move 
  	their users to doing mail submissions on port 587?

Of course not- and I eat my own dog food. Come March 1, I will be 
flipping the switch on a large number of mail policy reforms where I 
work, including mandatory SMTP AUTH for all campus users.

It took a lot of pushing for me to get the policy in place. I 
believe that in the right environment (including one that I run) the 
additional control and accounting will be a positive tool.  

What I disagree with is the constant disingenuous suggestion made 
here that AUTH by itself has any impact on unwanted email. When the 
lights are on, but nobody is home, it doesnt matter how detailed the 
accounting is. And it seems that theres plenty of large providers 
around the world where this is the case.

matt ghali

--matt at snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin><
              The only thing necessary for the triumph
              of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke