Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1704 > unrolled thread

Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.networking

Contents

  Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-11 17:52 +0000
    Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-11 20:28 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-10-11 22:17 +0200
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-11 23:53 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2012-10-12 13:12 +1100
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
              Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2012-10-13 00:42 +1100
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-12 15:47 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-10-12 10:59 +0200
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-10-15 15:30 +0000
            Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-15 20:40 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-15 23:32 +0100
              Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-10-16 01:36 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> - 2012-10-12 01:13 -0500
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-10-12 11:02 +0200
          Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-13 04:49 +0000
            Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> - 2012-10-13 01:51 -0500
              Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 08:10 +0000
          Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-13 08:48 +0000
          Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:59 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Joe Zeff <the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfs.info> - 2012-10-12 07:22 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? David Hough <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-10-12 15:58 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
    Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-11 21:21 +0100
      Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-12 09:54 +0000
        Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-12 22:40 +0100
          Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 08:10 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Bob Hauck <postmaster@avalanche.org> - 2012-10-14 08:38 -0400
              Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:36 +0000
            Re: Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 14:25 +0100
              Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-14 18:37 +0000
                Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 23:44 +0100
                  Re (3+): Dud: ISP so send mail directly? no.top.post@gmail.com - 2012-10-15 11:46 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1704 — Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.

Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.

Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
from my installed `sendmail`?

== TIA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1705

no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> 
> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> 
> Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
> from my installed `sendmail`?
> 
That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your 
new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a 
dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a 
static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my 
ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on 
the local machine to do the job.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1707

On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
>>
>> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
>> access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
>> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
>>
>> Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
>> from my installed `sendmail`?
>>
> That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
> new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
> dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
> static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
> ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
> the local machine to do the job.
>
> Dave
>

Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special 
arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional" 
account) that allows such access.  The simple facts of life are that the 
huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to 
recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or 
spambots.  And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except 
when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has 
anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple 
way to stop such spam being spread.

It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.

It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail 
transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.


The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
calls it.  You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the 
power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a 
delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message. 
But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own 
server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking 
your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1709

David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
> going directly to its own email relays [...]

That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1710

On 12/10/12 09:53, Chris Davies wrote:
> David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  wrote:
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
>
> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)

Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through 
zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the 
majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn & 
jp). I do have B, C & D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.

I actually get exceedingly litte spam from dynamic(sorbs?) IPs according 
to spamcop, so I've never bothered invoking a sendmail test(jargon?) on 
dynamic IPs.

My view is that "open proxy" (spamcop test*) gets a REJECT in access and 
no reporting address gets a "550 we dont want your spam" message" in access.

*Over a decade ago, when I started running a mail server(smtp) it would 
accept everything and then process it by various scripts. At the time, 
Sorbs decreed that my server was OPEN PROXY, which it wasn't. so I've 
been wary about this label ever since.

The good part was that I was sharing spam via CD for people who wanted 
to train their spam filters. Eventually I upgraded to sendmail and saved 
a enormous amount of incoming($$$) traffic.

Getting back to the point about ISPs. Apart from briefly having my 
current ISP provide DNS, I have never had any ISP require me to use 
their mail server or blocked releveant ports. Caveat, I will not use one 
that does.

Sadly, it is an issue of technical skills within the ISP. Dealng with 
DNS issues was bad enough, but I'm not lining up to learn the 
configuration of whatever mail server they think is flavour of the month 
and continually fixing their configuration.

Caveat, you probably can afford a better class is ISP if you are 
employed in a large company rather than running your own show.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1716

In article <k57ua5$l2f$1@dont-email.me>, terryc <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote: 

> On 12/10/12 09:53, Chris Davies wrote:
> > David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>  wrote:
> >> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
> >> going directly to its own email relays [...]
> >
> > That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
> 
> Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through 
> zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the 
> majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn & 
> jp). I do have B, C & D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.
> 
 ! Yes, currently I'm getting a wave from *.jp
 Last time/S there were some international games on, a spam-wave
 also came from the far east. Strange?
> 
> 
> Getting back to the point about ISPs. Apart from briefly having my 
> current ISP provide DNS, I have never had any ISP require me to use 
> their mail server or blocked releveant ports. Caveat, I will not use one 
> that does.
> 
> Sadly, it is an issue of technical skills within the ISP. Dealng with 
> DNS issues was bad enough, but I'm not lining up to learn the 
> configuration of whatever mail server they think is flavour of the month 
> and continually fixing their configuration.
> 
 That's exactly my view!
> 
> Caveat, you probably can afford a better class is ISP if you are 
> employed in a large company rather than running your own show.
> 
 No. If you follow 'bling' you get to M$. And then you're really
 screwed re. INDEPENDANCE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1718

On 12/10/12 20:54, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> In article<k57ua5$l2f$1@dont-email.me>, terryc<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au>  wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/12 09:53, Chris Davies wrote:
>>> David Brown<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no>   wrote:
>>>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>>>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
>>>
>>> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
>>
>> Interesting. Regional effect? After running the incoming address through
>> zen.spamhaus which blocks 99% and thus saves me download fees, the
>> majority. for me, of "spam" now comes through Asian language IPs (cn&
>> jp). I do have B, C&  D(IP) blocks on Korean as well.
>>
>   ! Yes, currently I'm getting a wave from *.jp
>   Last time/S there were some international games on, a spam-wave
>   also came from the far east. Strange?

My understanding isthe Korea is the worlds biggest games market, so 
there is a bit of by wash around from spamming related tothat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1719

terryc wrote:
> 
> Getting back to the point about ISPs. Apart from briefly having my
> current ISP provide DNS, I have never had any ISP require me to use
> their mail server or blocked releveant ports. Caveat, I will not use one
> that does.
> 
Freeserve in the UK used to transparently redirect mail to their own smtp 
server for outbound, so it didn't matter who you thought you were connecting 
to, you'd be talking to them. Particularly irritating if you wanted to the 
same mail to a dozen people, because they'd hold on to it, presumably for 
some sort of spam checking.

> Sadly, it is an issue of technical skills within the ISP. Dealng with
> DNS issues was bad enough, but I'm not lining up to learn the
> configuration of whatever mail server they think is flavour of the month
> and continually fixing their configuration.
> 
> Caveat, you probably can afford a better class is ISP if you are
> employed in a large company rather than running your own show.

Actually, some of the smaller ones are often run by a few tech-savvy people 
who know what they're doing.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1713

On 12/10/2012 00:53, Chris Davies wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
>
> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)
> Chris
>

It is probably the exception most places - most ISPs are not 
particularly concerned about being "good net citizens".

In the UK, there has been such a race to get the lowest price on net 
access that the quality for most ISPs is abysmal.  It is full of 
companies offering ADSL "up to 8 Mb/s" - with the reality being perhaps 
200 Kb/s during peak times, along with a traffic cap that means you 
can't download a Linux Ubuntu DVD without hitting your limits.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1737

On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, at 23:53:53h +0100,
Chris Davies explained:

> David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
> 
> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)

Is that because ISPs in the UKofGB&NI are now required by law
to keep a record of all ingoing and outgoing e-mail for when
the government authorities demand the information on with whom
Joe Luser has been communicating? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1738 — Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <k5ha6d$4bj$4@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> wrote: 

> On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, at 23:53:53h +0100,
> Chris Davies explained:
> 
> David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
>> going directly to its own email relays [...]

Does that mean the ISP can determine if a clients 'stream' is going
to: http or NTTP or <email> ?

But then these detestible(sp) web-based mails would 'escape'?

I was pleased, that based on feedback from this thread, I got
`mutt` to read my gmail, which is even better than `lynx` or
`links`.

But now I realise that to SEND mutt, just uses `sendmail`.
So I'm back where I started. And I'm not convinced that
if I sweat-blood to get sendmail: smart-host working,
it will be able to fake my "From: " field to make the 
mail-lists believe that I'm sending from the orininal
ISP1.

What slays me, is that whereas pop & smtp to the ISP are so
trivial, that you can just write down the steps from the RFC,
and interactively paste them as a telnet session.

`sendmail` seems to be as absurd as the-english-language.

Why doesn't somebody who claims to understand it, do a
hello-world/successive-refinment evolutionary test-sequence/
tutorial. eg:--
* send from root to non-root-user on the same PC.
* send from non-root-user to root user on the same PC.
  I tried that and traced that my text had gone to /var/*,
   but couldn't 'pop' it, to get a full 'cycle'.
* CONFIRM receipt ....
* send from root to ISP port 25
* send from non-root-user to ISP port xyz <-probe
* etc.

With a list of confirmatory traces for each stage.

What RFC should I fetch?

==TIA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1739

J G Miller <miller@yoyo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11th, 2012, at 23:53:53h +0100,
> Chris Davies explained:

>> David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
>>> going directly to its own email relays [...]
>> 
>> That's very much the exception here in the UK. (Unfortunately.)

> Is that because ISPs in the UKofGB&NI are now required by law
> to keep a record of all ingoing and outgoing e-mail for when
> the government authorities demand the information on with whom
> Joe Luser has been communicating? 

I think you've misread my comment as its opposite. In the UK it is *not*
normal to block outgoing SMTP traffic.

Picking up on your reference to the proposed record keeping, I'm curious
to know by what criteria an organisation would be judged in order for
it to be determined whether it was permitted to run its own direct
SMTP server. But I suspect we ought to take this sideline to its own
thread.

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1740

On Monday, October 15th, 2012 23:32:43 +0100, Chris Davies explained:

> I think you've misread my comment as its opposite. In the UK it is *not*
> normal to block outgoing SMTP traffic.

My mistake -- thanks for the clarification.

> Picking up on your reference to the proposed record keeping, I'm curious
> to know by what criteria an organisation would be judged in order for
> it to be determined whether it was permitted to run its own direct
> SMTP server.

Probably in the future, it will be necessary to buy a government issued
licence to legally operate an SMTP server which "broadcasts/receives"
to/from the Internet   ;)

This will be a source of revenue and provide a legal reason for
the SMTP licence agents (run by a private company) to visit suspected
terrorists and those critical of the ruling party.

After all if one is required to purchase a licence to receive live video
or transmit over the public airwaves, why not a licence to receive or
transmit over the public Internet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1711

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown 
<david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
> >>
> >> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
> >> access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
> >> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
> >>
> >> Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
> >> from my installed `sendmail`?
> >>
> > That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
> > new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
> > dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
> > static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
> > ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
> > the local machine to do the job.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> 
> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not 
> going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special 
> arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional" 
> account) that allows such access.

Not entirely true.  My ISP blocks port 25 to anything other than their email 
server.  My hosting company has the email server I use on other ports such as 
2525 so I can use SMTP to them without getting blocked.


>  The simple facts of life are that the 
> huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to 
> recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or 
> spambots.

Very true from my experince.


>  And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except 
> when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has 
> anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple 
> way to stop such spam being spread.
> 
> It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> 
> It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail 
> transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.

But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.


> The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
> all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
> calls it.  You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the 
> power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a 
> delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message. 
> But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own 
> server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking 
> your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.

Check with the company that supplies your email server to see what other ports
they have open for email other than port 25.

I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.


-- 
Robert Blair

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1714

On 12/10/2012 08:13, Robert Blair wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
>>> no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm subscribed to mail-lists from 10 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Now my wireless connection via my new ISP can't
>>>> access smtp of the original ISP.  So the mail-lists
>>>> can still mail me via pop, but I can't reply.
>>>>
>>>> Is it realistic for me to try to email the mail-lists directly,
>>>> from my installed `sendmail`?
>>>>
>>> That depends on whether you've got a static or dynamic IP address from your
>>> new ISP. Many places won't accept email directly from an address in a
>>> dynamic block, so in that case you won't be able to send it. If you've got a
>>> static IP address then there's no reason why not. I don't bother with my
>>> ISPs mail server and haven't for years, relying on sendmail or postfix on
>>> the local machine to do the job.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> Any self-respecting ISP will block all outgoing SMTP traffic that is not
>> going directly to its own email relays, unless you have a special
>> arrangement with them or have an account (such as a "professional"
>> account) that allows such access.
>
> Not entirely true.  My ISP blocks port 25 to anything other than their email
> server.  My hosting company has the email server I use on other ports such as
> 2525 so I can use SMTP to them without getting blocked.
>

Mail servers often also use port 587 for TLS SMTP and 465 for SSL SMTP, 
and ISPs normally don't block these.  But there is no need to block them 
- viruses and spambots stick to port 25 and don't use authentication - 
if they can't send somewhere quickly and easily, they just move on to a 
different target.  So a port like this is ideal for accessing externally 
hosted mailservers.

>
>>   The simple facts of life are that the
>> huge majority of computers that want to send mail directly to
>> recipients' mail servers are Windows machines infected by viruses or
>> spambots.
>
> Very true from my experince.
>
>
>>   And blocking SMTP traffic from individual machines (except
>> when directed through the ISP's mail relay, which presumably has
>> anti-spam and anti-virus checks) is the single most efficient and simple
>> way to stop such spam being spread.
>>
>> It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
>>
>> It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail
>> transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
>
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.
>

Indeed - but the aim is to stop spambots that /don't/ try to go around 
such blocks.

>
>> The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on
>> all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim
>> calls it.  You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the
>> power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a
>> delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message.
>> But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own
>> server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking
>> your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
>
> Check with the company that supplies your email server to see what other ports
> they have open for email other than port 25.
>
> I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723 — Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-pn2-Bcmc4QRCtkdI@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> wrote: 

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown 
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
--snip--
> > 
> > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> > 
> > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail 
> > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
> 
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.

Will you please tell me how.
> 
> > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
> > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
> > calls it.  

Where's the docos on how to do that?
 
> > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the 
> > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a 
> > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message. 
> > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own 
> > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking 
> > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
> 
> Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> 
> I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> 
No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

Previously, all my traces in the re-coded per RFC, 'sender' 
showed OK, like TxAuthenticate, but the mail was apparently
just not forwarded.

NOW, it gets <reject messages> .
So they are changing their set up.
Which screws me.
It's like Micro$hit continually moving the requirements, so
that you have to continually be paying them.
Like narcotics peddlars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724 — Re: Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:49:59 UTC, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:

> --snip--
> > > 
> > > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> > > 
> > > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail 
> > > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
> > 
> > But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.
> 
> Will you please tell me how.

Use a port other than 25 when you connect to your email server.


> > > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
> > > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
> > > calls it.  
> 
> Where's the docos on how to do that?

Look at the sendmail documentation on how to configure sendmail to use a 
"smart host".


> > > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the 
> > > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a 
> > > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message. 
> > > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own 
> > > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking 
> > > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
> > 
> > Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> > what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> > 
> > I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> > 
> No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

I would have expected at least one to work, are you sure you configured the 
email client correctly?

Call the company that is supplying your email server and ask the what ports 
are available.  One email server I use requires you use SSL and use port 995 
to get email and port 465 to send email.  Another email server requires that I
POP before send to port 587.


-- 
Robert Blair

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1726 — Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-pn2-Jcf6P7pOq9KM@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> wrote: 

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 04:49:59 UTC, no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
> --snip--
> > Will you please tell me how.
> 
> Use a port other than 25 when you connect to your email server.
> 
> > > > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
> > > > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
> > > > calls it.  
> > 
> > Where's the docos on how to do that?
> 
> Look at the sendmail documentation on how to configure sendmail to use a 
> "smart host".

--> OK: goog: sendmail+%22smart+host%22
> --
> > > Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> > > what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> > > 
If your living amongst sheep, you might suceed with animal psychology
provided you were skilled at it, else it's best to try technology.

> > > I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> > > 
> > No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>
> 
> I would have expected at least one to work, are you sure you configured the 
> email client correctly?
> 
`telnet  <smtpAdr>  <port>`
Is easy and ambigious

> Call the company that is supplying your email server and ask the what ports 
> are available.  One email server I use requires you use SSL and use port 995 
> to get email and port 465 to send email.  Another email server requires that I
> POP before send to port 587.
> 
OK, I remember once that, <after a pop-fetch 'it knew' me, for smtp>.
As you add more variables:
 ISPs, ports, UserIDs .. the choas becomes unmanageable.
So re-applying to the mail-lists just adds more confusion. 

> -- 
> Robert Blair

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1725 — Re (2): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-pn2-Bcmc4QRCtkdI@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> wrote: 

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown 
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
--snip--
> > 
> > It's a pity that lots of (most?) ISPs do not block SMTP traffic like this.
> > 
> > It is also a shame that people like yourself and the OP who have a mail 
> > transport agent set up like this get caught in the cross-fire.
> 
> But if you know what to do you can easily get around the block.

Will you please tell me how.
> 
> > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
> > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
> > calls it.  

Where's the docos on how to do that?
 
> > You lose a small amount of control - you no longer have the 
> > power over retry attempts or delays, for example, and don't get a 
> > delivery failure notice until the ISP's relay gives up on the message. 
> > But other than that you save yourself a lot of effort, save your own 
> > server a bit of effort, and avoid problems such as receivers blocking 
> > your mails just because your neighbour has a virus.
> 
> Check with the company that supplies your email server to see
> what other ports they have open for email other than port 25.
> 
> I expect they have at least port 587 and possibly 465.
> 
No, ports 587 & 465 <fail>

Previously, all my traces in the re-coded per RFC, 'sender' 
showed OK, like TxAuthenticate, but the mail was apparently
just not forwarded.

NOW, it gets <reject messages> .
So they are changing their set up.
Which screws me.
It's like Micro$hit continually moving the requirements, so
that you have to continually be paying them.
Like narcotics peddlars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1732 — Re (3): Dud: ISP so send mail directly?

In article <TECQXhvKj0FX-pn2-Bcmc4QRCtkdI@SATURN.home>, "Robert Blair" <nobody@nowhere.not> wrote: 

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:17:08 UTC, David Brown 
> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/12 21:28, David Hough wrote:
> > > no.top.post@gmail.com wrote:
--snip--
> 
 > The simple answer is that you set your mail transport agent to pass on 
 > all outgoing mail to your ISP's mail relay as a "smart host", as exim 
 > calls it.  

OK, I'm collecting info on 'sendmail+"smart host"', but even this
best one is deficient: ---------------------
==>   The SMART_HOST macro allows you to specify the host that should
   relay all outgoing mail that you are unable to deliver directly, and
   the mail transport protocol to use to talk to it.

=\  Open your configuration file:# vi /etc/mail/sendmail.mcAppend or
   modify macro that read as follows
   :define(`SMART_HOST',`smtp.net4india.com')Replace smtp.net4india.com
   with your actual smtp server address. If line contains word, dnl
   remove the dnl word. Regenerate a new sendmail.cf config file with
   m4 command:# m4 /etc/mail/sendmail.mc > /etc/mail/sendmail.cfRestart
   sendmail service:# /etc/init.d/sendmail restart

==?==> WHAT is "your actual smtp server address" ??
-> pgrep sendmail == na.
---------------- end of extract ----------------------
By "your actual smtp server address"
 he must mean the ID of the sendmail-server-on-your-PC?
 
Because your-PC will be sending to the remote <name@domain>?
So where do I find that?

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.networking

csiph-web