SMTP-Friendly ISPs? 70
alanpage asks: "My
ISP got out of the dial-up business and sold my account to Earthlink.
They do not allow me to send e-mail (via port 25) on behalf of the
web sites that I maintain. Are any of the major players in broadband
or dial-up port 25 friendly?"
Port 25 Friendly? (Score:3, Informative)
By reading your question, it sounds like you want to send out mail via your ISPs SMTP using an e-mail address for a webdomain not hosted by them. Any GOOD ISP will not let you do this.
You may wonder why. Well, if I can do this, then I can forge e-mail addresses and send out any kind of mail I want. That's a good way to get blacklisted.
Basically "port 25 friendly" is also known as "spam friendly".
What I would recommend is seeing if those sites where those domains are hosted allow SMTP services with password authentication. Some place do, and then you can send out mail from any ISP using those mail server.
My personal e-mail is not connected to my ISP. I have password authentication in place.
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:2, Informative)
FYI for the poster, I think Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] doesn't block outgoing (or incoming) SMTP. They have DSL and dial-up. Personally, I use AOL Timewarner roadrunner, and they don't block it. But cable modems may not be available / desired.
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:1)
That's very strange. I've never, ever had that problem.
I've used AT&T@Home (before they change), Adelphia's cable modem service, and several small ISPs.
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:1)
Actually any good ISP SHOULD let us do this, provided you are connecting from an IP number owned by the ISP.
If they didn't allow this, then we would be stuck with only using email addresses provided by ISP, which is not an option for say a student flat like ours, where we want to have our own email addresses, but don't want to restrict ourselves to webmail, or purchasing email addresses from the ISP.
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:1)
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:2)
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:1)
Re:Port 25 Friendly? (Score:2)
They don't host my web site. They don't mind if I use their SMTP server to send email "From:" my domain which they do not host.
Thus, I disagree with your statement about any good ISP not allowing this, by presenting an example of a very good ISP that does
duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to connect to outside SMTP servers, you'll either have to go with a smaller ISP that doesn't have paranoid, 'we're not going to be the front for spam' policies in place (and make a sacrfice, be it limited dialing area, higher prices, or whatever) or tunnel out to a server that will allow you to connect to foreign SMTP servers.
Why not use tunnelling (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't you tunnel ? Then you can use whatever port you want.
If you have SSH running on one of these servers - and who doesn't nowadays - you can easily tunnel. Just check your ssh client configurations. If you're running windows, a good client is SecureCRT [vandyke.com]. If you're running linux, and the other side is windows NT/2000/XP, use this PPtP client [mit.edu]
And there's another advantage with tunnelling: You can compress. Unless you have a very fast connection, you'll visibly notice a speed improvement when compressing.
Myrealbox (Score:1)
So? (Score:2)
t-online (Score:2, Interesting)
They provide 2 outgoing smtp servers, the first one, rewrites any From: header with your official t-online email address.
The second one, which one has to register for, relays and preserves the From: address.
Both these servers only accept connections from ip numbers they own.
This is ideal, as it is flexible, and prevents against spammers. The only thing is the fact I now rely on the t-online server, which hasn't been a problem so far.
AT&T Global network (Score:1)
Nifty enough (under windows) it comes with a not-dumbed-down dialer program that includes (and updates itself) with all of their access numbers. All of them, from Argentina to Venezuela. Including ISDN numbers.
Amusingly enough, we went to them from Earthlink.
DirectTV DSL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DirectTV DSL (Score:2)
I was previously a speakeasy.net customer (highly recommended!) and will likely go back if directvdsl doesn't shape up by the time my one (albeit cheap) year with them is over.
Re:DirectTV DSL (Score:1)
Re:DirectTV DSL (Score:1)
charter.net (Score:1)
I would think that charter.net would be the same in many/all areas, since when I have had to contact technical support they've always responded with a southern accent and I'm in the midwest.
The only thing I dislike is that during the windows worm period they blocked port 80 traffic even though I wasn't effected. It was turned on after a while and from what I understand their current policy is to shut down bandwidth to anybody who does become infected, which I think is a good policy.
Re:charter.net (Score:1)
I got a personal email saying they'd cancel my service. They never did...now that Charter has taken the accounts from @ Home, they filter everything...grrrrr
I gave the modem back the other day. Screw them. Slow service, filtered ports?!
Re:charter.net (Score:1)
Hmmmm (Score:1)
RoadRunner (Score:1)
Use ssh (Score:3, Informative)
ssh -L2001:mail.server.to.use:25 my.shell.server
Any connections to port 2001 on your local machine will then be forwarded (encrypted) to your shell server, and from there be forwarded to port 25 on the mail server.
ssh makes a great tool for busting out of firewalls.
Road Runner (Score:1)
I was going to post the original url [rr.com] for the acceptable use policy which was like a page long and it didn't say that we couldn't run mail servers on RR, but they seem to have moved it to here [twcable.com] which seems to be a much longer and more specific TOS. But on the bright side, it still doesn't really mention that you can't use your own server to send and receive email (hopefully I didn't overlook anything).
National ISPs that don't block SMTP... (Score:1)
Our problem? Half of our customers can't USE the service - we spent 45 minutes on hold with Earthlink one night trying to figure out what was wrong with one of our customer's email settings. Turns out that it's not a bug, it's a feature. *smirk*
So if any knows of any national providers that don't block SMTP, it would help *me* a lot.
(Disclaimer: I understand WHY providers would block outgoing SMTP server connections. It's mostly justifiable. I just also think that they should notify their customers of this fact in a somewhat obvious fashion.. maybe in their online FAQs.)
Re:National ISPs that don't block SMTP... (Score:1)
s/any/anyone
:)
"mostly" justifiable (Score:1)
Several counterpoints:
1) I own my own domains, and mail sent to them is forwarded to my home system. Naturally I respond from the same system, which isn't a problem since all of my network information is set up for these domains, not my ISP connection. But if my ISP forces me to bounce mail through them, the mail will come from my ISP not my own company. This harms my credibility.
2) Worse, many ISPs insert extra content in outbound mail. Again, that little spiel for my ISP harms my credibility.
3) Finally and potentially most damaging, bouncing mail through the ISP means that they can easily monitor everything that goes through their system. Including sensitive business information. This information may get to my competitors.
That last item is why I use encryption when possible, and my MTA uses TLS when possible. But end-to-end encryption is still rare, and TLS is worthless if a third party acts as a middleman.
Is spamming from residential systems a problem? Of course... and I fully support ISPs that have a "death penalty" clause for spammers. They get complaints showing spam came from your IP address, and you get a phone call and a dead line until you discuss the situation with the ISP. First offense is "reinstall the OS, run virus checkers, etc." with account termination for repeat offenders.
But ISPs can't claim that there is no legitimate argument against an anti-spam policy that requires everyone use their mail servers. This is especially true in the broadband market where many people are paying for connectivity, not "ISP" services, and any attempt to force them to convert will cause massive disruption. (E.g., I lost *no* mail during the transition from @home to AT&T because I always use my own domain name precisely to avoid such problems.)
Re:You're a moron. (Score:2)
Yahoo has pop and smtp. Until Jan 31, the smtp is pop-before-smtp, but afterwards it's normal smtp-auth. But yes, they also add that damn footer.
there is NO legitimate need for a dial-up user to connect directly to someone else's SMTP server. EVER.
What if one's ISP doesn't have SMTP service in the first place? Furthermore, suppose one lives where there is no competition in the ISP business, so it would be impossible to switch? Don't laugh, I've seen both cases in fairly large cities. Big companies swallowing up the small ones. Just because you might not have seen something, doesn't mean it hasn't happened to someone else.
Re:"mostly" justifiable (Score:2, Interesting)
1) I also own my own domain. I have my local mail clients set to send out mail with my domain in the From: line. It goes out through Earthlink's server. The From: line is not rewritten. Yes, there is an Earthlink Received: header, but that really shouldn't be a big deal. I can't imagine how this would hurt your business's credibility.
Of course, this may not be the same for all ISPs, but the original message was talking about Earthlink.
2) While I have seen many free-mail systems insert ads in outgoing messages, mail from my Earthlink account has never been altered. But not all ISPs are the same here, of course.
3) E-mail is never secure, no matter what server(s) you use. You are no more at risk using an ISP's server than using your own. Encryption of sensitive information is always a requirement, no matter what your network uses.
IMO, you may be more at risk using your own, because it is an attractive target for your competitors (and others who may wish you harm.) It is less likely that someone will attempt to hack a major ISP in order to get access to one customer.
Finally, there are plenty of broadband services that don't filter. But you may have to get a business line (which will cost more) if you require that level of service. For quite some time, my employer was paying for a business DSL line into my home - there was no filtering of any kind, but it cost about $150/mo for 256K SDSL. My current Earthlink line is much less expensive ($65/mo for 1.5M/128K ADSL and a static IP), but there are restrictions. That's the way things are - if you don't want any restrictions, you can get it, but it will cost more.
(This, of course, doesn't even discuss the wisdom of direct port-25 access over a dial-up line, which IMO is completely unsuitable for business purposes, even if it isn't blocked by an ISP.)
Re:"mostly" justifiable (Score:1)
This happened to me when I used Mindspring. I would send mail and some remote sites would bounce it back because Mindspring got a bad reputation for allowing spam. Blocking outgoing port 25, while inconveniencing a small percentage of users, is one of the steps they took to make sure that their users could send mail.
Re:National ISPs that don't block SMTP... IA (Score:2)
1) it is directed to one of their addresses;
OR
2) it comes from one of their static IP addresses (mine -- dunno about their dialup accounts) and is addressed anywhere.
Of course, I make sure my SMTP server does not relay.
As far as I can tell, they have no trouble with SMTP traffic that they just route at the IP level -- they don't appear to firewall port 25 and force tou to send email via their SMTP servers. Theis is generally how I send mail.
So, they will accept mail for their destinations, and will relay mail that comes from their static IPs.
Yes, they know I am running an SMTP server, and ask only that I (a) do not spam (not relaying ensures that I do not permit others to do this); (b) send excessive traffic upstream. This strikes me as a reasonable policy. I am a satisfied customer.
Maybe a dialup isn't the right access. (Score:2)
Perhaps they're quite worried about spam with dialups, since they're so easy to setup that even giving a spammer a few hours of window will cause major problems for them. But since we've also had people using major dialups (like PacBell) who don't have a problem using the company's dialup to send email with an @OurCompany.com email address, I can't imagine that this should be a really major issue.
Re:Maybe a dialup isn't the right access. (Score:1)
Re:Maybe a dialup isn't the right access. (Score:2)
Worldnet (Score:1)
Road Runner SMTP (Score:1)
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:1)
perhaps
that he may have tried this
and perhaps
that earthlink rewrites the From: header as previously mentioned?
Re:what's the big deal? (Score:1)
I have Earthlink DSL at home. I have configured my mail client (Netscape) to send through them. Netscape is configured to use my yahoo.com address as the From: address. It is not rewritten when I send mail out. I have personally tested and verified this.
The only downside to using Earthlink's server is that they insert their own Received: header in the message. (And they can block you if they think you're a spammer, but most of us shouldn't have to worry about that.)
a question and an answer (Score:2)
Second, the answer. Earthlink will gladly allow your sendmail to work, just set their mail server as your smarthost. It works like a charm, I use them as a backup net connection.
Adelphia (Score:2)
toad (Score:2)
Er, you CAN use SMTP, port 25. (Score:1)
Seriously, this is a Good Thing(tm). I know NOC guys at Earthlink/Mindspring, they keep on top of their servers. (Although I've got better overall uptime on mine. Hah!) So there's really no need to use foreign SMTP servers.
Aside from that, as a seperate ISP, I BLOCKED Earthlink dialups from directly contacting port 25 here long before they put the filter in place. It's neigh-impossible to police the 6 or 10 million accounts they have right now for spammers... much easier to put heuristics on the mail gateways watching for spam-levels of mail going from one dialup. Effective, too. They're not my #1 source of spam.
Also, it's not just earthlink. A lot of their POPs are partnered with port-resellers. The major resellers automatically put a port-25 block on, and punch a hole back to the ISPs mailserver. There's nothing Earthlink can do about it. I have Qwest as a port-provider on our national dialup, and they do that for us as well.
In summary, after 2000, any ISP that provides clear access to port-25 outside their network is no longer a techie-friendly ISP, they're spammer-friendly and techie-hostile.
--Dan
Re:Er, you CAN use SMTP, port 25. (Score:1)
Road Runner in Austin, TX (Score:1)
Re:Road Runner in Austin, TX (Score:1)
Hoewver, as I have to use my machine for development I had every conceivable type of server running at one point in time or another (IIS, Apache, etc).
The only network scans I saw from RR involved scanning for open smtp relay -- since mine wasn't open they never complained about it. During the CodeRed 1 & 2 debacle I was even kind enough to compile a list of IP addresses on their network that were scanning me from infected IIS boxes. They kindly reminded me that their AUP prohibited me from running servers but I told them that I have one machine for development and it is part of my job and there was nothing I could do about it. I also told them that there was no publicly accessible links/content being served and that I stayed on top of all patches/vulnerabilities. They seemed satisfied with that response.
Re:Road Runner in Austin, TX (Score:1)
Besides, my SMTP server is not really a server in their eyes. In fact, I'd call it an "SMTP client". Nothing connects to it from the outside. In fact, it runs on my local machine, which is behind a Linksys firewall/router.
Re:Road Runner in Austin, TX (Score:1)
In any case... I miss RR... *sniff* I'm on attbi and have a massive 128kbit/s upstream rate... not even good enough to host a decent AVP2 game...
It's simple (Score:1)
If you're not on their network, you can't just use their SMTP because they don't know who you are.
Those of you who are saying "I don't have any problem with this".... well duh. You're logged on to the network in question. The original poster evidently is not.
FYI, Earthlink does NOT allow you to authenticate to their SMTP from outside their network.
From the standpoint of clients who want to have domain-based email without being on the same network as their domain host, if they are using Outlook (I know, I know), which many are, they can use their own ISP's SMTP and put their domain email address in the replyto: field. Makes it look like it came from their domain. This has saved me a few migraines along the way. Thanks Microsoft! heh
I have one (Score:1)
-- Devin
Use Earthlink's SMTP Server (Score:2)
Stupid ISPs (Score:1)
Sendmail's SMTP out is fine on Camcast Cable (Score:1)