1 |
Mick wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 27 Jun 2014 21:54:32 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:22:09 +0100, Mick wrote: |
4 |
>>> I would think that your ISP providers in the US will be blocking |
5 |
>>> outgoing port 25 to stop compromised MSWindows machines spamming the |
6 |
>>> rest of us. If you use my suggestion there shouldn't be a problem. |
7 |
>> It makes no difference whether you address it directly to your ISP |
8 |
>> address or via an alias. The ISP won't block port 25 connections to its |
9 |
>> own servers from its own customers, otherwise none of them could send |
10 |
>> email at all! |
11 |
> In the US many big players are blocking outbound port 25 for their customers |
12 |
> as a blanket measure to control spam from botnets, e.g.: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/internet/highspeed/general+support/top+questions/questionsone/124274.htm |
15 |
> |
16 |
> If Dale uses the ssmtp.conf I sent he will be using a different port + TLS |
17 |
> encryption and should not have a problem. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Even if Dale's ISP does not block port 25 for connections to the ISP's *own* |
20 |
> mail servers, it may well block it to other providers' mail addresses for the |
21 |
> same reason. This was a common practice some years back (pre-Gmail) when ISP |
22 |
> had started charging for mail services. |
23 |
> |
24 |
|
25 |
According to the settings in Seamonkey, it should be port 995 and |
26 |
SSL/TLS. I used your "basic" setup which is port 465. It works tho. |
27 |
:-) |
28 |
|
29 |
Dale |
30 |
|
31 |
:-) :-) |