Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On 7/28/2014 6:36 PM, Brian wrote:
> 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?
>
No RFC - and no RFC is required. ISPs are free to set their own rules
on how they run their own systems. If you don't like it, you can find
another ISP.
But they also are not in any violation of any RFC's. No RFC says they
have to provide port 25 connectivity to your system.
>>> 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.
>
Completely immaterial.
>> 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.
>
If they are a good ISP, then they will have higher uptime than you do!
And even if they are down - your local system will tell you and you can
try again later.
But you also seem to think that just because the remote MTA accepted the
email the user got it. That is not necessarily so - for a lot of
reasons. For instance, many MTA's will silently drop emails to a bad
address rather than rejecting them. It makes it much harder for a
spammer to discover whether an email is valid or not.
>> 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.
>
That's the way it is. There is a significant amount of spam sent from
compromised residential machines. These are almost always on dynamic
IPs. Like it or not - that's the way it is.
>>> 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.
>
>
Then prove it to your ISP. And please name "the large ISP networks
which harbor spam bots".
Jerry
Reply to: