Re: Requesting comments on draft-cheney-safe-02.txt

["Robert A. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>]

At 13:03 -0600 on 08/02/2009, Willie Gillespie wrote about Re: 
Requesting comments on draft-cheney-safe-02.txt:

>I know of some large cable internet providers that block access to
>"external" SMTP servers by default -- but allow unauthenticated access
>to their SMTP server.  Will this be a problem?

I think that if you check again, they do not "block access to
'external' SMTP servers by default" but only block access to
'external' SMTP servers ON PORT25. IOW: If/When I access that 
external SMTP Server on Port587 (the RFC designated 
MSA/Mail-Submission-Agent Port that replaced use of Port25 a few 
years ago) or Port465 (the SMTP-over-SSL Port) they allow it. They 
only block/hijack Port25 Connections.

IOW: Have SAFE use a Non-Port25 Port and it will get through. The 
only problem with Ports 465 and 587 is that you either need to start 
a SSL session or do a Logon to access the server (if you follow the 
rules for those ports although you can have separate SAFE Server 
Farms which do not need to observe these rules so long as they do not 
act as MSA Servers).