| 1 |
On 15/10/2015 19:04, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> My ISP recently started offering imap email service in addition to |
| 3 |
> the pop3/smtp servers they've always had, so I decided to try it. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I was surprised to see that they recommend using a different smtp |
| 6 |
> server name when setting up my mail client, and they even offer the |
| 7 |
> option of using port 587 instead of 465 if I prefer it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why would I use a different smtp server if I'm now using imap? I use |
| 10 |
> smtp to send mail, and imap to read it, right? Why not use the same |
| 11 |
> smtp server in either case? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> (The different server names actually resolve to the same IP address, so |
| 14 |
> the distinction seems to be more theoretical than real, but the theory |
| 15 |
> is what puzzles me.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Let me clue you in a little about what goes on with mail at your regular |
| 20 |
ISP level. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The days when the mail admin was a hotshot guru are long long gone. |
| 23 |
Those same gurus are now off doing other cool shiny stuff (like |
| 24 |
telegram); and all us sysadmins are so over mail like we are over |
| 25 |
cassette tapes. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Your average person now doing mail or more often than not somewhere |
| 28 |
between low and mid level. And worse, they often don't know what they |
| 29 |
are doing. Who knows why they communicate some of the things they do, |
| 30 |
because I sure don't. That, unfortunately, is the average state of |
| 31 |
affairs today. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
This might well not be the case for your ISP, but like you I can't see a |
| 34 |
good reason to use a different name for outbound mail. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Have you asked them why as a direct question? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 41 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives