Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 20:16:08 +0200, Slavko wrote:
>
> Dňa Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:37:54 +0100 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>
> napísal:
>
> > No need to be sorry. The simplification was fine. It's just that here
> > mutt and other MUAs connect to exim for direct mail delivery. I wanted
> > to clarify that servers can also be clients.
>
> It is named as "with smarthost", it can be easy set by the
> dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config dialog ;)
I'm aware of the capabilities of 'dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config' and the
'smarthost' option. On this machine (at home) I can deliver my own mail
to its destination without having to rely on someone else. Advantages
are that I get immediate feedback and the certain knowledge the mail has
arrived at its destination.
When out roaming, I use my own server as a smarthost to get the same
advantages.
> > > I want to point, that for end users is intended the 587 port, as
> > > mentioned someone other too, and IMO it is not a good opinion to
> > > suggest to try (check) the port 25, if the 587 is provided. Another
> > > goal is, that there are some ISP, which don't
> > > blocks/redirects/proxies the 587 port yet ;-)
> >
> > brian@desktop:~$ nmap -Pn mail.o2.co.uk
> >
> > Starting Nmap 6.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2014-07-28 18:30 BST
> > Nmap scan report for mail.o2.co.uk (82.132.141.69)
> > Host is up (0.047s latency).
> > Not shown: 998 filtered ports
> > PORT STATE SERVICE
> > 25/tcp open smtp
> > 110/tcp open pop3
> >
> > Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.61 seconds
>
> Beware, port scan can be criminal in some countries...
Do you really mean "criminal"? Which countries are these which
criminalise looking at something which is in a public place? Walking
round with my eyes closed and my brain closed down isn't an attracive
prospect.
> > Whether they direct all outgoing port 25 trafic to their own server I
> > do not know.
>
> Try ask your email provider to enable 587 port, pointing to the
> mentioned RFC ;)
mail.o2.co.uk is not a server I use; it was an example. My "email
provider" (for sending) is myself. Completely trustworthy and reliable.
> > Your observation that ISPs could also interfere with port 587 doesn't
> > cheer me up. :)
>
> It is black side of the freedom...
That hasn't done much to increase my cheerfulness. :)
Reply to: