nanog mailing list archives
RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
From: Michael.Dillon () radianz com
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 10:51:44 +0000
It's time to take this thread to SPAM-L or some other spam oriented list.
I strongly disagree. This thread has not been about spam. For the most part it has dealt with technical operational issues of email services and therefore it is right on track for this list. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Michael . Dillon (Feb 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Michael . Dillon (Feb 28)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Steven M. Bellovin (Feb 28)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Feb 28)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 28)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Mar 01)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Frank Louwers (Mar 01)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Nils Ketelsen (Mar 01)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 01)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 28)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 01)
- Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Michael G (Mar 01)