On Wednesday 27 February 2008 04:44, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 26 February 2008 10:01:02 -0500 Scott Kitterman
<scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 07:57, ram wrote:
I think the oft repeated "SPF-breaks-forwarding" and
"Use-SRS-when-frowarding" is the still top problems for SPF acceptance.
The next big hurdle is when ISP's block smtp access to corporate
mailservers and force the corporates to include a plethora of IP into
their SPF
Use the submission port, port 587. That's virtually never blocked.
Where it is blocked, it means that the institution is forbidding you to use
third party email domains. ISPs should not do that, but companies with
security worries may do so.
Actually one of the few places I've had a customer run into problems was a
hotel in Paris that silently redirected port 587 to their mail servers. The
solution was to support an unpriviledged port. Technically this makes no
sense for the hotel to do it, but who knows what people do in the search for
solutions.
In another case it was blocked I told the customer to tell the hotel that
blocking 587 made no sense and they should unblock it. The hotel did so.
The largest case where it's blocked (AFAIK, I've never tested it myself) is
the Great Firewall of China.
Scott K
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=2183229&id_secret=95887956-51703a
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com