Anybody (else) get ping'ed by Comcast about Port 25 emailing?

[Jerry Feldman]

On 12/02/2008 09:41 AM, Bayard Coolidge wrote:
> I got a nastygram from Comcast in my normal e-mail inbox this morning,
> warning me that I was considered a spammer and/or that I had a security
> problem caused by a virus/bot.
>
> The recommended fix apparently is to move my outbound SMTP to Port 587,
> which I have now done.
>
> But, considering that I'm running openSUSE 11.0 and Thunderbird, download
> my e-mail using POP, and don't use any of the traditional Unix/Linux mail
> systems, I'm wondering what their real agenda is...
>
> Or is this an artifact of the Port 25 stuff that was so heavily discussed
> here during the summer? Maybe I've been too prolific in forwarding .wmv's
> and other fun stuff to friends and relatives?
>   
It has nothing to do with the port 25 stuff. I'm surprised you have been 
able to send via port 25 since they changed to port 587 several months 
ago. While I certainly can't speak for Comcast, by using port 587 they 
can distinguish between email originated within their network by 
subscribers and that originated outside. It also reduces the likelihood 
that a DOS attack on port 25 will block legitimate subscribers from 
uploading email to Comcast. You also might note that gmail also uses 
port 587.  I use comcast port 587 for my Comcast identity, gmail for my 
gmail identity and the BLU (via ssh tunnel) for everything else.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20081202/6d170909/attachment.bin