Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?

Tue Mar 1 23:01:12 UTC 2005

J.D. Falk wrote:

>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...)
>>    
>>

Exactly.

>>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.
>>    
>>

Ditto.

>>In either case, why will the clued ISP's want to block 587?
>>    
>>

It makes no sense for clued ISPs to block 587.  That 587 should be 
provisioned for unauthorized connections, or that clued ISPs should 
block 587 are both suggestions that make no sense.

>	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.)
>  
>

I'm not sure that I agree with this translation.  I don't see *any* 
logic, just FUD as an excuse for failing to become educated about which 
problems 587 can help solve, the reduced problems that will exist when 
587 is properly implemented by most networks, learning how easy it is to 
properly implement 587, educating your users about the benefits of using 
587, etc.  We saw all these same types of arguments (arguments due to 
implementation ignorance and fear of the support costs)10 years ago when 
we were trying to get networks to close open relays.

>	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.
>  
>

Or take this topic to spam-l - where I feel it belonged in the first place.

jc