On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Jerry wrote: > Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net> replied: > >If only it were so. Think company that decides caters to thousands > >(insert a larger number of your liking here to avoid another > >sarcastic response that misses the point) of users on port 25 and > >can't one day just STOP accepting all mail on that port, no matter how > >useful and nicely worded the REJECT is that directs them to 587. > > Excuse me, but does the name 'Comcast' ring a familiar note. They only > rescinded that decision when their support lines were over taxed by > calls. Personally, IMHO, they should have weathered it out. Their > customers would have smartened up eventually. In the long run, forcing > users to employ SMTP authentication, etc. does decrease the amount of > SPAM.
Thanks for the interesting anecdote, but it is rather non-sequitur and probably more appropriate for spam-l than postfix-users. I share your anti-spam zeal, but that is not under discussion here. > >The OP has already stated he understands the merits of using the > >submission port but needs another solution given his REAL WORLD > >constraints. > > The real problem is that he is enabling a user base to control his > actions. He has to determine who is in charge. If he is, then he makes > the final decisions. If not, then 'quite bitchin'. Wrong. The real problem is that you are making baseless assumptions about the OP's operating environment and customer base. The "who is in charge" mentality makes for fun macho narrative, but often does not apply when paying customers and bureaucratic management types run the show. In those scenarios, the people running the mail servers take orders and implement decisions from higher up. No one is bitching in this thread, so your note appears to have been mis-directed. The point remains that the OP is in an un-ideal situation and is seeking a TECHNICAL workaround given a set of unfortunate constraints. It is perfectly reasonable to inform him about the virtues of 587 submission (this was done early in the thread), but repeatedly swinging the same cluebat in spite of context does not seem useful. Speaking of which, this thread has veered way off topic, so this is my last post on the subject. :-) -- Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net>
