On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:33 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> If you're doing the "right" thing, sending email via encrypted, >>> authenticated mechanisms, then you're doing it TCP ports 587 or 443. >>> Where Mike's mechanism obstructs you not at all. >>> >> Depends. Some hotel admins aren't so bright. That's the problem. Not >> everyone hears block outbound SMTP on port 25, they hear block outbound >> SMTP and stop listening. Boom, 25, 465, 587 all get turned off. > > Sure. But that's not Mike's mechanism. It's ignorant hotel guy's > mechanism. Don't penalize Mike because some other fool does something > similar but wrong. > Mike recommends a tactic that leads to idiot hotel admins doing bad things. You bet I'll criticize it for that.
His mechanism breaks things anyway. I'll criticize it for that too. > >>> If you're still doing the wrong thing, trying to talk to remote SMTP >>> servers on TCP port 25, why should his mechanisms not punish you? >> >> It's not wrong to talk to them on port 25. It's wrong to allow >> unauthenticated >> remote users to send on your own port 25 for relay purposes. > > Sure it is. Same way it's wrong to have an open relay or an unsecured > proxy. It isn't 1995 any more. > As I said, we can agree to disagree about what is wrong. I know your position. I still don't agree with it. Owen
