North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
email@example.com wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said: > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: > >>> What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers >>> with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587? >> >> Give a good reason. That is still the missing part. > > If you're a roaming user from that provider, and you're at > some other site that blocks or hijacks port 25, you can still send > mail by tossing it to your main provider's 587. If that's not a > good enough reason to motivate the provider to support it, nothing > will (except maybe when the users show up en masse with pitchforks > and other implements of destruction...) There seem to be many who feel there is no overwhelming reason to support 587. I can certainly see that point of view, but I guess my question is what reasons do those of you with that viewpoint have *not* to implement it? I just don't see the harm in either configuring your MTA to listen on an extra port, or just forward port 587 to 25 at the network level. Other than a few man-hours for implementation what are the added costs/risks that make you so reluctant? What am I missing? Andrew