Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 16:05:11 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/28/2014 1:16 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> > All my mail from home is sent directly using exim which, as far as I can
> > make out will only send on port 25. Leaving aside what you say below (my
> > ISP does not block outgoing port 25 traffic) I should not be affected?
> >
>
> Exim can use other ports also. It's all in the configuration. (but
> sorry, I do not have enough expertise to tell you exactly how to do it).
Exim will definitely *receive* mail on multiple ports; that much I do
know. Sending on other than port 25 would appear to contradict the idea
that MTAs only communicate over port 25. But I'll look into it.
> > So, in world where every ISP blocks outgoing port 25 connections the
> > delivering of one's own mail becomes impossible. The flow of spam and
> > malware across the net will continue to increase though, I suppose.
>
> No, it just means you need to connect to a mail server via port 587,
> then have it send the email.
If exim cannot send over port 587......... And how do I know the mail
server I'm connecting to is accepting on port 587? I don't think mine
does; I'll have to check. I'm provisionally of the same opinion as
expressed above; the flow of communication is controlled.
> If spammers can't use compromised machines, it severely limits the
> number of servers they can use. And since an IP can be blacklisted if
> too much spam is sent through it, responsible hosting companies and ISPs
> (i.e. those who don't wish to be blacklisted) will limit the number of
> messages which can be sent per time unit and/or terminate accounts for
> sending spam. A user on a compromised machine, though, wouldn't know
> their system was blacklisted and probably wouldn't care.
>
> Just another way to help protect unsuspecting users from themselves.
I don't need or want protecting from myself. I'll go to hell in my own
way. :)
Reply to: