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?

  • From: andrew2
  • Date: Thu Feb 24 16:53:38 2005

owner-nanog@merit.edu 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