Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 03:33:33PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Not practical. When I'm on the road (about 150 days a year) hotels and
>> cafe wireless often block port 25 and 143. So I absolutely have to use a
> But they're mostly not blocking port 587, which is where mail is supposed to
> be submitted to. And if they _are_ blocking it, then they need to be hit
> with a cluestick.
Your point? Most companies need to be hit with a cluestick, that doesn't
mean they don't do it. There is a very large free wifi provider near me
that actually blocks anything that doesn't have www. E.g; they don't
block ports, they blocks names!
>> direct SMTP.
> Nobody should be using "direct SMTP" as such in this day and age. That's
> what the submission port is for.
That may be correct but it certainly isn't reality.
Joshua D. Drake
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-11-29 15:57:32|
|Subject: Re: Can we please refuse mail to the list from list addresses?|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-11-29 15:45:51|
|Subject: Re: Time to update list of contributors|