nanog mailing list archives
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:22:35 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Chances are that the Sendmail team doesn't share your worm problems as most of them are not likely running unpatched windows boxes.
You don't have to run Windowz systems to get hit by their blowback. And that's the problem, in a nutshell.... -- -- Todd Vierling <tv () duh org> <tv () pobox com>
Current thread:
- Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Sean Donelan (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Daniel Golding (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Jason Frisvold (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Owen DeLong (Feb 16)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 16)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Todd Vierling (Feb 17)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Owen DeLong (Feb 17)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Todd Vierling (Feb 19)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Adrian Chadd (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Thor Lancelot Simon (Feb 15)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Owen DeLong (Feb 16)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Daniel Senie (Feb 16)