Matus UHLAR - fantomas skrev den 2013-11-17 20:13:
I believe the point was exactly to avoid any MTA in path.
On 18.11.13 00:34, Benny Pedersen wrote:
why ?
to avoid filtering, modification and delaying which often happens on
submission servers.
if i used spamcop i could make a patch, but i have more work to
do, lets say spamcop_nodirectmx.pm
I do not think those spams should be sent indirectly, because of many
possible issued between sender and recipient.
hmp, if sender have problems lets make workarounds, it would help
senders if spamcop was just a email supporter, not really as big as a
isp, to not confuse terms
This particular problem is nothing that should SpamCOP take care of.
If an ISP blocks sending to port 587 but allows port 25, it should
die asap.
i think isps have not gmail sasl auth submission support, but google
might get them all :)
This is nothing that ISP needs to "support".
If a company blocks everything but a few protocols, it is not "we do not
support" but "we block and do not allow".
It makes perfect sense to prevent people from spamming by preventing
end-users from connecting port 25 (SMTP). It makes little sense to block
unknown ports. And it makes no sense to block port 587 that is in fact
designed to avoid spam problem. If they block 587, thery are in fact
telling people "you can spam from our network, but you can not send valid
mail.
However - as I stated in other mail, it's possible that someone was trying
to connect invalid server on port 587. The mx.spamcop.net does NOT listen on
587. Maybe someone set up invalid mail address to report spam to?
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
(R)etry, (A)bort, (C)ancer
