Paul Howarth wrote: > However, it does not work from ISPs that block outbound port 25 > connections, which is why port 587 is recommended for this purpose. > > Anyone seeing port 587 blocked is probably behind a corporate firewall > that is blocking everything bar port 80 maybe, and should respect that > company's policy of not allowing outbound mail from their network. For what it's worth, I'd recommend asking. I would argue that a competently-configured corporate firewall would block everything in every direction unless there is a business need for it (for example, SMTP to or from mail servers, HTML from the proxy and to the web server, DNS from servers. On a suitably flat network, most PCs don't need a default gateway). But that doesn't mean that holes won't be opened once a suitable need has been demonstrated. If a visitor wants to access a particular "home" server for e-mail purposes, I personally would be more than happy to open "my" firewall *from* that PC *to* the ports needed on the requested server. But until I know that it's needed and which port, PC, and server to allow, I'm going to keep that connection blocked along with everything else. One of the best ways of keeping a paranoid ruleset on a firewall is "keep everything closed until someone moans"! James. -- James Wilkinson | We still have enough spare cardboard sitting around Exeter Devon UK | to send a bus by Parcelforce, although not enough E-mail address: james | wrapping to be sure they wouldn't deliver it broken @westexe.demon.co.uk | into two pieces. -- Alan Cox
