On Tuesday 17 June 2003 02:55 pm, Chad and Shaun Horton wrote:
> The bright folks at Cox have struck us with another one of their
> brilliant ideas again. Apparently the Cox put a jimmy hat on port 25.
> Do you have an smtp server and also subscribe to Cox (http://www.cox.com
> and http://www.cox.net)? Well, you poor sap. You are no longer allowed
> to send email through your smtp server because Cox, in their infinite
> wisdom, has now blocked port 25. This includes both servers within your
> local network AND hosted by an external provider.
>
> There has yet to be a supporting argument providing a realistic reason
> why they started blocking port 25. (below is a poor explanation from
> cox, which you can also read at
> http://support.cox.net/custsup/email/email_info.shtml)
>
> Now, this may not be that big of a deal for some, since you can still
> route all of your email through Cox's smtp server, but just the mere
> fact that they would do something so ludicrous should tick everyone off.
Far from ludicrous, I think this is a great idea. Their explanation is
dead-on for why something like this is necessary. This should cut down on
outgoing SPAM and virii quite a bit.
Now their implementation leaves something to be desired. They really should
have fully authenticated SSL enabled SMTP... but ce'st la vie.
What about it, specifically, ticks you off so much?
(text/plain)