[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server

On Mon 28 Jul 2014 at 17:05:56 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> On 7/28/2014 4:56 PM, Brian wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> >
> Yes and no.  There is also an concept of "smart host" (I don't know if
> this is exim only), where all outgoing mail is routed through a
> different host.  It's quite often used in large companies, for instance,
> where an MTA receives all mail from users and delivers locally.  This
> server is not directly accessible via the internet; rather another MTA
> handles all traffic in and out of the network.
> But the main thought here is - you shouldn't be running a local mail
> server on a residential account.  There really is no need for it
> (business accounts are different).

You would have to explain that very, very carefully to me. Nobody who is
not part of a corporate environment is allowed to deliver their own
mail? I am not permitted to have the freedom to communicate in whatever
way I want because I live in a house and do not work in a office? Is
that in an RFC? You are telling me there is no need to pop a letter
though the letterbox of the house next door because I can get Royal Mail
to do it for me?

> > 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.
> > 
> I never said Exim cannot send over port 587.  In fact, I said just the
> opposite.  I just don't know enough about Exim configuration to provide
> the details.
> But then if you have residential service, there really is no need to
> have your own MTA (other than you want it).

I want to. When I go to relatives in London I want to take parcelled up
birthday presents with me rather than entrust them to DHL. Of course, I
needn't - but I want to.

> And even if you do have your own MTA, it doesn't help that much.  When
> you send a message, all your MTA can do is tell you if the message was
> accepted by the destination MTA.  Using a remote MTA will do the same thing.

You are guaranteeing the remote MTA will have 100% uptime and sends
mails and non-delivery messages in a timely fashion? And yes, knowing
the mail was accepted by the destination MTA is important; when someone
says they haven't received a mail from me I can demonstrate otherwise.
> One other thing - if you have a dynamic IP address, none of the servers
> I maintain will ever accept your email.  Dynamic IPs are specifically
> blocked due to spam problems.  That is also becoming more and more common.

Dynamic IP = spam senders. What's that? 80%. 90% of the people on the
internet. Disenfranchisement on a massive scale. O brave new world, That
has such people in't.
> > I don't need or want protecting from myself. I'll go to hell in my own
> > way. :)
> The problem is it's not YOU who suffers if your machine is compromised.
>  It is the rest of the internet.

Compromised? No need to worry; everything is in capable hands. Unlike
the large ISP networks which harbour spam bots.

Reply to: