Wanadoo SMTP server - grrrrrrrrrr!

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by Martin Underwood, Mar 29, 2006.

  1. Martin Underwood

    Rob Morley Guest

    That doesn't have anything to do with zomby spambots. If Wanadoo
    users' machines have been identified as a significant source of spam
    then I think it's quite responsible of Wanadoo to block that traffic.
    I already suggested using a proxy to access the Wanadoo server, someone
    else said use a third party email provider. Otherwise maybe you could
    convince Wanadoo to provide SMTP with secure authentication
    (SSL/STARTTLS) so that users can safely connect from outside their
    network.
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 1, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Martin Underwood

    Linker3000 Guest

    Try setting your outbound SMTP port to 587 - this is the 'mail
    submission' port defined by RFC 2476 and is supposed to eventually
    replace port 25 for this purpose - it is now accepted by many mail
    servers; it certainly lets you bypass AO(HEL)L's grabbing of outbound
    mail traffic.

    If you are managing your own mail server you may need to open port 587
    to it on your router and also make the server listen on port 587 - check
    the mail server's docs, or if you are running postfix just let me know
    and I will tell you what to do.

    L3K
     
    Linker3000, Apr 2, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Martin Underwood

    roddy Guest

    Run a small SMTP server on the laptop and send using MX record.
    Google for one.
    Configue OE or MS Outlook to use "localhost" or 127.0.0.1 to send.
    Always run an SMTP server on a laptop that is out and about: most ISPs block
    SMTP on third party connections, to stop relaying.
    Roddy
     
    roddy, Apr 2, 2006
    #23
  4. Martin Underwood

    Mark Goodge Guest

    I'd entirely agree with this. The big consumer ISPs (with the
    exception of NTL, which works fine technically but I wouldn't
    recommend for other reasons) are *not* suitable for anything other
    than bog-standard domestic use. If you have any requirements for
    anything non-standard, particularly if it involves using your home
    email account at work or when travelling (or vice versa: accessing and
    sending messages from your work account while at home), then you need
    a more flexible ISP. And the good news is that a bit of searching will
    not only find ISPs that are more flexible than Wanadoo, etc, but also
    cheaper and with better technical support.

    Mark
     
    Mark Goodge, Apr 2, 2006
    #24
  5. Martin Underwood

    Dave J. Guest

    Wouldn't work on wannadon't - I was caught out by that train of thought a
    while back, but when you think about it, wannadon't will block *any*
    outgoing connection on port 25, and that includes the connection made by
    your local server to deliver the mail :-(

    Useless bunch. I'd sooner spend the two minutes twice a day that it takes
    to delete the spam on this account (requiem at freeuk.com which has been
    used in the clear on usenet postings for *many* years now) than put up
    with draconian interference by loopily well meaning ISPs.

    Spam is a minor pain in the neck, but it doesn't warrant the interference
    with my connection applied by so many so called ISPs.

    Dave J.
     
    Dave J., Apr 3, 2006
    #25
  6. Martin Underwood

    roddy Guest

    So the real problem is Wannadon't blocking port 25.
    Ask them to switch it on: if they don't.
    Move ISP to a more enlightened outfit.
    Roddy
     
    roddy, Apr 9, 2006
    #26
  7. Martin Underwood

    Rob Morley Guest

    You don't seem to understand the problem. If Wanadoo is responsible for
    letting a large amount of spam onto the Internet by not blocking port 25
    they could be placed on a blacklist and /all/ email originating from
    Wanadoo, whether legitimate or not, would be dropped by other ISP
    mailservers. Ideally they would solve this problem by educating all
    their users to use AV and firewall protection to stop their machines
    from being owned by hackers, but that's just not going to happen any
    time soon.
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 10, 2006
    #27
  8. Rob Morley wrote in
    :
    Interestingly, my customer has just sent me an email cancelling my booked
    call to him tomorrow because he wants a second opinion from someone else: he
    says that it must be a very common situation wanting to set up a laptop so
    it can send email using a single account in OE or Outlook irrespective of
    which ISP it is connected by at the time - the implication being that I must
    be unaware of how to solve the problem...

    The Wanadoo situation is maybe a bit *too* draconian: I could understand
    them blocking access to their SMTP server from non-Wanadoo, but preventing a
    non-Wandoo server from being used via a Wanadoo connection as well makes it
    impossible to have a single account which can send via all ISPs.
     
    Martin Underwood, Apr 10, 2006
    #28
  9. Martin Underwood

    Mark Goodge Guest

    He's absolutely right in this respect :)
    But he's about to discover that you are, as well.
    Such restrictions are increasingly common on consumer ISPs. The only
    reliable solution is to get a better ISP.

    The other option, if his third-party mail supplier supports it, is to
    use a different port for outgoing mail. Gradwell.com, for example,
    uses port 225 for this purpose. It's not uncommon for third-party mail
    suppliers to offer this, as the situation you describe in this thread
    is one of the main reasons they get business and therefore it's in
    their interests to help customers work around ISP restrictions.

    Mark
     
    Mark Goodge, Apr 10, 2006
    #29
  10. Mark Goodge wrote in
    :
    Exactly. This was one of the observations that I made to him: that it looks
    like stalemate if he continues to use Wanadoo.

    Unless...
    Now that sounds an interesting way of circumventing it, assuming that
    whatever alternative port his third-party email provider might allow to be
    used isn't also intercepted by Wanadoo.
     
    Martin Underwood, Apr 10, 2006
    #30
  11. Martin Underwood

    Mark Goodge Guest

    It's very unlikely that it would be. For a start, there's no need to -
    the anti-spam justification for intercepting port 25 doesn't apply,
    since it would be impossible to spam indiscriminately through a
    non-standard port. And there are plenty of things which use other
    ports, so blocking them all by default isn't really an option for an
    ISP. (It might be for a corporate network, that really wants to clamp
    down on what users can do, but that's not the situation here). I think
    the only provider which might have that level of blocking in place is
    AOL, but they've always been different in that respect and don't
    really count as an ISP in the commonly accepted meaning of the term.

    Mark
     
    Mark Goodge, Apr 10, 2006
    #31
  12. Martin Underwood

    Rob Morley Guest

    Servers can be set up to accept connections on any port (you just need a
    router to forward traffic to the correct port) - there's a popular free
    news server that accepts NNTP connections on /all/ ports, which is great
    for getting around workplace restrictions.
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 11, 2006
    #32
  13. Martin Underwood

    Lordy Guest

    gmail SMTP server uses a high port by default. Get them a gmail account.

    Lordy
     
    Lordy, Apr 11, 2006
    #33
  14. Martin Underwood

    Linker3000 Guest

    Have you tried using port 587 outbound as I mentioned elsewhere in this
    thread?
     
    Linker3000, Apr 11, 2006
    #34
  15. Martin Underwood

    Dave J. Guest

    Perhaps not..
    I can understand that if their relay server was responsible for bulk junk
    email then that relay would (deservedly) be placed on various blacklists,
    but if their dynamic IPs are responsible for direct-mx delivery of junk
    then surely that range is where the blacklist would apply and it should
    have no impact on mail via their relay? (Different subnet I'd have
    thought)

    Likewise, if their dynamic IPs were responsible for junk via alternate
    relays, then surely it is the irresponsible alternate servers that belong
    on the blacklist, not the originating IPs?
    Education is the one thing that would cure *most* of the networking grief
    in the world. Trouble is that most users are incapable of spelling TCP,
    let alone understanding any commonsense rules.

    Another thought is an invisible proxy for all port 25 traffic, relaying to
    the intended destination but hashing the content paragraph by paragraph.

    Reason I say para by para is that if there was a minimum size for a
    paragraph to be noted, to help avoid false positives, then 'similar' mails
    with the core content camoflagued by prefixing/suffixing with random junk
    would still show up as duplicates. The subscriber to that IP could then be
    queried on his/her actions (could be a mail list or similar) and a
    potential spammer eliminated.

    Above is just top of head thinking, but I'm very interested in responses.

    I really have a thing against ISPs that aren't ISPs, I expect to pay for a
    connection to the internet, not some fake partial linkup.

    I also have a dislike of blacklists, but that's because I *personally*
    don't have a problem with manually deleting the junk, the cost totals less
    than a day a year. This address has been used as a PT From: on my usenet
    posts for a *very* long time, and I see manual filtering as part of the
    price I pay for easy contact.

    Dave J.
     
    Dave J., Apr 12, 2006
    #35
  16. Martin Underwood

    roddy Guest

    Look the initial problem stems from your client's inability to accept that
    he does not have a commercial grade broadband connection.
    Sure there are work arounds like sending using a different port and using an
    external port translation service: why bother keep it simple and advise him
    to move to another ISP: suspect it will be cheaper anyway!
    The financial consideration is that your client is paying you and now wants
    to move onto paying someone else: these costs will far exceed the cost of
    him switching to a connection that does not block port 25. Tell your client
    to get real.
    Commercial users wouldn't / couldn't tolerate a service that blocked port
    25.
    Roddy
     
    roddy, Apr 13, 2006
    #36
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.