This is the lamest approach to network security. Now I can't reach *MY* email se...

brongondwana · on Nov 12, 2014

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt

December 1998

It's hardly your ISP's fault that you are 16 years behind best practice.

bsder · on Nov 12, 2014

It is my ISP's fault for BLOCKING THOSE PORTS.

And, since I don't really have a choice of ISP, I can't change that.

Some of us live in the real world where we wind up having to do things like put mail servers on port 80 or 25 because that port doesn't get blocked.

Thanks for playing.

nitrogen · on Nov 12, 2014

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2476.txt
December 1998

It's hardly your ISP's fault that you are 16 years behind best practice.

Could you be so kind as to point to the relevant section of RFC2476?

tedunangst · on Nov 12, 2014

> Port 587 is reserved for email message submission as specified in this document.

arjie · on Nov 12, 2014

Does that actually change anything? If everyone used 587 for MSAs, then the ISPs would have to block 587 and use their own relay to prevent spam (under GP's solution). I mean, it doesn't change anything, does it?

jauer · on Nov 12, 2014

Using 587/MSA implies[1] authentication which implies that the client is using a server that is responsible for the email sent through it.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTP_Authentication

jitix · on Nov 12, 2014

You cannot enforce something just because it's 'best practice'. Why should the ISP restrict a user form running HTTP on port 25 and SMTP on port 80?

rakoo · on Nov 12, 2014

It is my ISP's fault if my ISP blocks a port and doesn't let me any way to unblock it, whatever I do with my port. My ISP's job is to forward packets, not something else.

cm2187 · on Nov 12, 2014

A third of the ISP don't even support TLS/SSL on their outgoing traffic. Gmail publishes some interesting stats on that. Having to go through your ISP smtp is nearly as bad as no encryption at all.