[clug-talk] Did shaw shut down external ports?
lost at l-w.ca
Tue Jun 19 13:59:32 PDT 2007
Gustin Johnson wrote:
> Even though I have provided a work around (the ports 587 and 465) for my
> clients, how long until the spammers begin to use these ports as well?
> At best this policy of Shaw's provides short term respite while doing
> nothing to combat the actual problem. I would rather they spend our
> money more effectively.
587 is not supposed to accept anything at all unless it is
authenticated. If you've simply deployed it as a clone of port 25, you
should probably consider changing it to require authentication and not
accept local mail delivery (unless it's authenticated of course).
Assuming the majority of people deploy 587 correctly (authenticated
submissions only), there's no percentage for the spammers to switch to
using it. And yes, I am practicing what I preach here; my servers do
require authentication on port 587. It was a trivial configuration
All that said, as has been pointed out recently, there is really no gain
to arguing about the merits of Shaw's policy. Even NANOG differs
on whether that's a good idea.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled list traffic.
 Yes, we all know what happens when you assume
 It required reading documentation on sendmail and adding a single
flag to the port options for 587. If you're using something else, it
should be the same process. Read the documentation and then implement it.
 North American Network Operators Group (www.nanog.org)
 has flame wars about
finger lost at l-w.net for further information
Geek Code V3.12: GCS/M/S d- s+:+ !a C++ UL++++$ P++ L+++ !E W++ !N w---
!D !M PS PE V-- Y+ PGP t+@ 5++ X !R tv+@ b+++@ !DI D? G e++ h+ y?
More information about the clug-talk