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

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@mesanetworks.net>]

On 20140731_2251+0100, Brian wrote:
> 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."

Good malware? What a concept;-)

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@mesanetworks.net