for those using SMTP servers that requires authentication (such as Gmail), they're pretty much stuck in a bind already. Sending out their mails using TM's smtp server instead may cause their mails to be rejected (where its a pretty common setup for mail servers to reject mails where the originating smtp server's address does not match the MX record for the sender's domain)

tmnet SMTP server also refer to dsbl/spamhaus/RBL/ORDBL which later block most of the ip leased by their DHCP server. Plain stupidity.

That isn't a problem as far as large or decent mail providers are concerned. The blocking has been precedented by other ISPs who have been doing it for years. Mail providers have caught on and have their servers listening on other ports for example 587.

wkKay... Just got an email announcement this morning from Exabytes asking everyone to change smtp port 25 to port 26 as an alternative to going through streamyx's smtp-proxy...

Yeah, its not a problem for my work related accounts, as I access those via a VPN anyways. Just more of an annoyance when it comes to Gmail.

yeah that the standard port for smtp. But now my mail provider had change to port 26 now is working fine. If im a spammer, i still can continue spam wat. Btw gmail is using port 465 so its not affecteda also. So any alternate smtp other than port 25 still can work. It just matter of time the spammer to get back to their duty.

Port 26 is working already?i try at my area din work.

My company are using Jana Server as proxy server.Now i change the port to 26 but can work for me.It cannot let me type smtp-proxy.tm.net.my.

This post has been edited by PonG: Dec 4 2007, 04:29 PM

Port 26 only applicable to exabytes server.

OK, I think you misunderstood what I meant. Suppose..

A = you
B = exabytes (submissions on port 26)
C = 3rd party (on port 25)

Now provided these scenarios:

1) A wants to spam C. Port 25 is blocked, so A cannot spam C directly.

2) A via B spams C. The spam will be delivered. However, when C reports the spam, B has to take action on A's account (e.g. suspend it for TOS violation) otherwise it risks getting itself blacklisted.

3) A spams B. Again, in B's best interests, action will be taken on A's account.

4) C spams B. This can be easily blocked on B by mandating that submissions to port 26 must be authenticated, so 3rd parties can't spam its local users.

I believe what you were thinking of is scenario #2. The big picture motivation for the block is really to handle scenario #1. This happens due to infected computers being abused to send spam. Or possibly, syndicates abusing their Streamyx connections to spam. Convince yourself by checking your spam folder - see just how many mails are sent from connections with dynamic IPs.

By disallowing direct SMTP connections, the users now have to relay through servers that are accountable for the mails. After all, it is easier to blacklist a single static IP vs a infected computer that changes its IP every day as its user logs on and off.

ok, can send through my company's webmail, but it kinda take a long time 2 reach receipient.. d*mn, i wan my smtp back!

Already send a complaint letter to the TM CEO Office & GM Marketing. Hopefully they 'fix' their SMTP server of fallback to No Proxy

I found it effective to send straight to the CEO rather than customer care. Customer Care will delay your case but if you CC their CEO, they will work super fast. Believe me..

Here is the reply.

---

Added on December 4, 2007, 6:22 pmMore reading

http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/12/customers_c...over_tm_net.php

This post has been edited by boring: Dec 4 2007, 06:22 PM

lets just giv them some time c how they come up with any solution lo..

How about scenario 5, i setup my own smtp server directly from LAN so i can use whatever port i like because is on my LAN. I can directly send e-mail from my own smtp server without going thru relay server and im on dynamic IP. So consider i still can spam.But i totally agree with you on the infected computers being abuse to spam, by blocking port 25 it can stop the infected computer to continue spamming.

Btw here a little piece of information i like to share:
i tried to setup my own smtp server and its working.Click here for more information and its a freeware http://www.geekgirls.com/net_smtp.htm
I can send out e-mail directly from my computer, i manage to send e-mail to streamyx receipient but not other receipient like gmail or hotmail because the receipient server response that my e-mail originated from unauthorise SMTP IP which i think they have a list of authorise SMTP IP list.
If any of you have time might tried it out.

That puts you back into scenario #1. Once your client relays mails to your private SMTP server, how would it (the private server) then relay it to the target server? Through port 25! Same difference, so you can't avoid the block. I'll illustrate my point with a diagram:

a) Your Spamlook Express --> Streamyx (port 25 blocked here) --> target mailserver
b) Your Spamlook Express --> your private SMTP server --> Streamyx (port 25 blocked here) --> target mailserver

yeah your rite, but since the mail provider switching to alternative port now, it cant be block,even the mail provider wan 2 ban my account for spamming they can done it when the port is still 25 no need to wait for now.1st bandwidth shaping now they block port 25, later only port 80 is allow?

I just hv a thought... do u think this hv anything to do with recent issues? Since now TM can hv a copy of all our mails, they can do anything they want, including search for anti-gov conspiracy??? just a thought...

i still can use my outlook this morning ..
using outlook 2003, havent change smtp yet ..

As I said, the motivation is to stop scenario #1, not scenario #2. Whatever you do with your mail provider is not TMNet's problem anymore as the accountability shifts to the mail provider for relaying the spam.

I don't think it's the goal, though it is a handy side-effect for them. I always use TLS over SMTP, which is pointless if it's going to be bounced through a server I don't trust.

However, it is fairly standard to support port 587 for authenticated mail submission from MUAs so I don't think this should end up being a big issue for most people in the long run. All of my work-related mail servers already accept mail on port 587 from authenticated users, as does the commercial service I use as a backup.

So... any news on whether the block is in effect or has been postponed?.. or is this just another announce but do nothing about it kind of thing from TM?