Brett Parker writes:
Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk wrote:
<snippage class="much" />
Yeah, I did go into rather more depth than I realised until I received my copy back.
I trust nobody here is on 9600 dial-ups?
[Stuff about auth SMTP]
*mutter* this is only any good if that server is also running a non-port 25 SMTP server... Wanadoo, I know from bitter experience, use a transparent poxy SMTP server, so they try to catch all your outgoing e-mail.
I believe that port 587 is a more-or-less standard alternative that should work for Auth SMTP.
Again, this is why having a server under your own control is a good thing :-)
I'm sure I had this working on a Freeserve connection, can't recall trying it since Freeserve became Wanadoo but I doubt that much changed.
Forced SMTP proxies are a big pain, though, particularly when (as happened occassionally) the Freeserve one gets blocked because someone sends a load of spam through it. I'm pretty sure they no longer do this, instead they block attempts to reach any SMTP server apart from theirs (ie you get bounce messages when you [try to] send via a different SMTP server because their server still intercepts the connection but no longer forwards it through their server).
Aside: I think a lot of the policy changes are forced because of the email-borne viruses (attacking an operating system that needs no introduction) using a variety of messages to send itself from compromised machines. In the past, an ISP would see this behaviour as spamming and drop the customer's account for abuse of the AUP. These days, I guess that's not considered fair because the "sender" (ie ISP customer) did not knowingly send the emails. Coupled with the speed they spread (making cancelling accounts a slow way to stop the spread) I can see some logic to the Wanadoo line.