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