Re: Finding a replacement for my ISP's smtp server
On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 15:34:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > The point of my remark was that malware can operate on port 25 so there
> > is nothing to prevent it operating on port 587. I was actually agreeing
> > with you when you said "Nothing".
>
> Yes, but Port 587 requires (or at least should require) a login; Port 25
> never does for email destined for the domains being served by that MTA.
I feel this is a repetition of a technical point we both agree on.
> > I think that once you get to discussing the capabilities of the malware
> > it acknowledges that port 587 presents no more problems to the malware
> > than port 25; it simply depends on how good the malware is. Which, as I
> > originally queried, brings into question the efficacy of ISPs mandating
> > its use.
> >
> > I'll not ask for ISP facts and figures to show how good port 587 is for
> > them.
>
> Yes, it does - again, Port 587 requires a login - which adds a huge
> layer of complexity to the malware.
I'm glad we can end this by both of us agreeing that "it simply depends
on how good the malware is."
Reply to: