-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --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?
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHTxMW4QvfyHIvDvMRArDVAJwNJMvepPIw50CtwNXTR7IUOAPGkgCeMSMz
HeVH90KtgbllK7BxEGMpbX4=
=y8GF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
