Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

Tue Mar 1 22:02:41 UTC 2005

On 03/01/05, David Lesher <wb8foz at nrk.com> wrote: 

> Well, I'm no player in this league and ask...
> 
> 	Why will ISP's ""wise up"" and block 587?
> 
> If 587 is always auth'ed; then there will be no spam splashback
> provoking calls to block it. (Individual customers may get
> zombied; but that's easy to track and treat...)
> 
> If a provider runs an open 587 port, and thus gets used as spam
> source; they will soon meet Mr. Linford and/or Mr. SPEWS.
> 
> In either case, why will the clued ISP's want to block 587?

	I think the anti-587 logic here seems to be that we (we being 
	the Internet community at large) shouldn't encourage anyone to 
	ever act more responsibly than the worst operator because that
	worst operator will continue to be irresponsible.

	(I am only translating, not agreeing.)

	In any case, nobody has expressed any new ideas around this
	topic for about a week, so I'd suggest we let it drop before 
	somebody mis-represents Godwin's Law.

-- 
J.D. Falk                                          uncertainty is only a virtue
<jdfalk at cybernothing.org>                    when you don't know the answer yet