SMTP failure - Page 2

jgoldberg · 30 Nov 2006, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by robmueller
What your problem probably is is that your ISP has started blocking the standard SMTP port 25. We have an alternate SMTP port on 26.

Do you recommend 26 in preference to 587?

Also, I just checked my client configuration and see that I'm talking SSL to port 465. It's been working for years and I must have set it up that way for a reason, but I've entirely forgotten doing so. So does port 465 have some meaning that I've forgotten. /etc/services says

Code:

urd             465/tcp     # URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM

But I don't think that that answers the question.

-j

robmueller · 1 Dec 2006, 09:35 AM

Hmmm, using 465 via SSL should be fine, I doubt it's being blocked by your ISP.

This all sounds very strange, do you have any firewall software installed?

Rob

jgoldberg · 4 Dec 2006, 03:34 AM

I think that when I'd first set up my client (five years ago), my then ISP was blocking 25. And looking back, I see that there was a time when 465 was unofficially used for SMTP with some type of encryption.

Anyway, I should go through bits of my configurations that are getting a bit more crufty. Now I'm free to use 25, but I'll configure for 587 as that is what official standards recommend.

This leads me back to my original question. I know that both 26 and 587 will work, but I was surprised to see the recommendation for 26 when 587 is the standards based way of doing things. So I was wondering if there is a reason you recommend 26 instead of 587.

Also for the original poster, does anyone know of a level 4 traceroute for Windows? That would help him determine which ports are blocked where.

Cheers,

-j

robmueller · 4 Dec 2006, 07:36 AM

No particular reason. Port 26 was our original workaround, so just used to recommending it.

Rob

4 Dec 2006, 03:34 AM	#18
jgoldberg Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Plano, Texas Posts: 88	Port 26 or 587 I think that when I'd first set up my client (five years ago), my then ISP was blocking 25. And looking back, I see that there was a time when 465 was unofficially used for SMTP with some type of encryption. Anyway, I should go through bits of my configurations that are getting a bit more crufty. Now I'm free to use 25, but I'll configure for 587 as that is what official standards recommend. This leads me back to my original question. I know that both 26 and 587 will work, but I was surprised to see the recommendation for 26 when 587 is the standards based way of doing things. So I was wondering if there is a reason you recommend 26 instead of 587. Also for the original poster, does anyone know of a level 4 traceroute for Windows? That would help him determine which ports are blocked where. Cheers, -j

1 Dec 2006, 09:35 AM	#17
robmueller Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,102 Representative of: Fastmail.FM	Hmmm, using 465 via SSL should be fine, I doubt it's being blocked by your ISP. This all sounds very strange, do you have any firewall software installed? Rob

4 Dec 2006, 07:36 AM	#19
robmueller Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 6,102 Representative of: Fastmail.FM	No particular reason. Port 26 was our original workaround, so just used to recommending it. Rob