Alternate SMTP port?

[revlis]

As more and more ISP's are filtering external port 25 connections, is there an alternate SMTP port available on www2? Or any other server(s)? Port 587 perhaps?

Thanks.

[porcupine]

As more and more ISP's are filtering external port 25 connections, is there an alternate SMTP port available on www2? Or any other server(s)? Port 587 perhaps?

Thanks.

Hello Revlis,

Unfortunatly no, while many ISP's block outbound (more in particular, inbound port 25), most do have alternative policies (eg. they can send email based off their domain through the ISP smtp servers). Any ISP's that are presently blocking port 25, without a solution to allow users to utilize external email, are clearly capitalizing on their ultimate control over the customer, forcing their hand for commercial gain, in which case I'd recommend customers avoid them.

While there have been discussions on alternate SMTP ports, the issue has generally arisen with the fact that there is simply no standard. While setting up another copy on ports ilke 26 (logical next step up), 2500, etc. will appease certain users, it will also upset other users who are behind corporate firewalls (and the like) and want access to their SMTP. For management purposes we try to make all of the services on all of the servers identical, thus it becomes a policy issue.

I would recommend users who are unable to use the standard SMTP port to reach our services either consider utilizing the ISP mail servers, or using IMAP, or one of the various webmail programs already loaded into their control panels (also available through www.domain.com/webmail/ ).

[ilaidlaw]

As more and more ISP's are filtering external port 25 connections, is there an alternate SMTP port available on www2? Or any other server(s)? Port 587 perhaps?

Thanks.

Hello Revlis,

Unfortunatly no, while many ISP's block outbound (more in particular, inbound port 25), most do have alternative policies (eg. they can send email based off their domain through the ISP smtp servers). Any ISP's that are presently blocking port 25, without a solution to allow users to utilize external email, are clearly capitalizing on their ultimate control over the customer, forcing their hand for commercial gain, in which case I'd recommend customers avoid them.

While there have been discussions on alternate SMTP ports, the issue has generally arisen with the fact that there is simply no standard. While setting up another copy on ports ilke 26 (logical next step up), 2500, etc. will appease certain users, it will also upset other users who are behind corporate firewalls (and the like) and want access to their SMTP. For management purposes we try to make all of the services on all of the servers identical, thus it becomes a policy issue.

I would recommend users who are unable to use the standard SMTP port to reach our services either consider utilizing the ISP mail servers, or using IMAP, or one of the various webmail programs already loaded into their control panels (also available through www.domain.com/webmail/ ).

The standard port for message submission is 587, see RFC 2476 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2476.html)

Ian

[revlis]

Port 587 is what I was looking for as well - 25 is for message transmission (smtp server to smtp server) and 587 is for client to server submission.

The ISP is still allowing outbound port 25 to itself only - and blocking everything else. I rather have the ability to send through prioritycolo so at least it is easier to get assistance if there are any problems in delivery. And more easy control over any delays in email transmissions.

If nothing is in place, or planned, that's fine. Just wanted to ask.

Thanks.

[porcupine]

Ahh,

I hadn't indeed read that RFC, and thus wasn't aware that it was anything more then a random port selection (believe me, after awhile, you get used to ignoring them, as every corporate firewall has its unusual holes, and thus I've had a slew of seemingly completely random port open requests for smtp, webmail, etc.

Given that, that would seem to be a very logical choice, I'll go skim over the RFC shortly, and I dont see a major issue with that request. Given that it is a RFC suggested port for this activity, this should generate 0 valid complaints from users who had their own "special" ports declined (for obvious reasons, with 300+ users on many systems, cant affect changes that will only potentially benefit one customer, yet deny the same benefits to the rest).

[simeon]

Any update on using port 587? Rogers in Toronto has started to block port 25 now, the alternate port would be very handy.

Thank you.

Simon

[porcupine]

Any update on using port 587? Rogers in Toronto has started to block port 25 now, the alternate port would be very handy.

Thank you.

Simon

Hi Simon,

Port 587 has been opened across all of the reseller servers as an alternate exim process/smtp port.

Enjoy .

[simeon]

Terrific, thank you.