Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>
> --On Thursday, November 29, 2007 13:39:09 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:00:07PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>> And is there a reason to assume spammers are that stupid as to not switch to
>>> using 587 if that does become some sort of standard?
>> Um, that you can't? One of the points of the new port was that it _only_
>> allowed authenticated submission.
>
> 'k, sorry, you did say that in your last to me ... but, wouldn't *that* imply
> that it is suddenly now okay to open up port 25? What I think is losing me
> here is why add a new port, when port 25 itself *should* already be 'only
> allowed authenticated'? Or, when you say "Only", do you mean even from the
> local network, no exceptions?
587 is access from anywhere, *always* authenticated, and can relay.
25 is for local delivery only, can *never* relay, but does not need auth.
At least that's how I understand it - I may have missed some details :-)
//Magnus
