Internet Email Services Association ( wasRE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?)

Kee Hinckley nazgul at somewhere.com
Mon Feb 28 17:44:47 UTC 2005


At 4:51 PM +0000 2/25/05, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>  >  I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- the whole
>>  business of port 587 is a bit silly overall...why can't the same
>>  authentication schemes being bandied about for 587 be applied to 25,
>>  thus negating the need for another port just for mail injection?
>
>Because that would require providers to act like professionals,
>join an Internet Mail Services Association, agree on policies
>for mail exchange, and require mail peering agreements in
>order to enable port 25 access to anyone.

Nice in theory, but I don't think it would scale.  In essence you are 
asking for a return to the UUCP model, where if you wanted to send 
mail on the network you had to have a deal with someone.  The problem 
isn't agreements, the problem is that there are borders at which 
people will not be willing to block, even if there is bad behavior. 
After all, there's nothing stopping ISPs from blocking port 25 
passing through their networks now.  But, every time someone tries a 
blanket block of (for instance) China, or even appears to do so, 
there's a huge outcry.  If you create an organization to do that, 
you'll not only have an outcry, you'll have a target for legal action 
(restraint of trade?).   That kind of thing needs government level 
action.  It's highly unlikely to happen, and it's far from clear that 
we would want it to.
-- 
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagegate.com/  Enterprise Messaging Security and Compliance
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/  Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.



More information about the NANOG mailing list