Bypassing the SMTP block nonsense

[Kei]

Hi All

After discussing WBS's new tactics with my web host they have told me that setting port 2500 instead of the default of 25 will allow you to send e-mail using your own mail servers.

I have reconfigured my e-mail client with port 2500 and I am back in business with my e-mail.

Please try it and let me know!

 

[slimothy]

well no, that works on your host because your host has an alternative port for that service, but its server dependant, it will only work if the admin opened port 2500 and binded sendmail to that port, 99.9% dont

 

[Kei]

The admin has done nothing on the server.... it was probably configured by default then.

Just trying to help!

 

[TheRoDent]

Any port, such as 25, or 80, that is being intercepted by WBS can be "routed around" by using an alternative port.

It breaks the entire idea of "well known" ports though, remains a "workaround", and DOES require action on the part of the administrator of the upstream system. Things like sendmail, postfix and exim don't just run on arbitrary ports by default.

 

[SupaMonkey]

My recommendation is to use SSL with your (SMTP) e-Mail. Worked for me since I had to use port 465.

Of course, that # can be different depending on your host/mail server settings - and thats if the SSL option is even available to you. Check with your hosts though, it might work for you.

 

[slimothy]

basically smtp on any other port than the one its supposed to be on will work, and you could use proxy servers to relay to your normal server but whats the point, thats what WBS do already

 

[Kei]

It breaks the entire idea of "well known" ports though, remains a "workaround", and DOES require action on the part of the administrator of the upstream system. Things like sendmail, postfix and exim don't just run on arbitrary ports by default.

The administrator has done nothing, if you read my post earlier you would have seen me mention this. Port 2500 happened to be enabled as an alternate. I cannot comment further because I pay for hosting with a 3rd party and therefore do not have access to such levels of configuration.

I did not ask for a lecture highlighting my apparent lack of knowledge of defined TCP ports OK. I don't want to come here anymore because people attack me and make out as if I am a dumbass.

IT and the internet IS NOT MY FIELD. I am not working in that field either!

I made the post on the small chance that it might help someone else!

Get that through your thick skull!

 

[DFantom]

it will only work if the admin opened port 2500 and binded sendmail to that port

You could always add a rule on the firewall/router/gateway to just redirect 2500 to 25 and not have to fiddle with mail server configs. Guess it depends on where you feel stronger, mail server configs or firewall configs

 

[TheRoDent]

I did not ask for a lecture highlighting my apparent lack of knowledge of defined TCP ports OK.

Get that through your thick skull!

Kei. This is a discussion forum. I was discussing the topic. I was not lecturing you per se'. Your claim is akin to someone saying "hey look, here's a theory, I'm writing a post about it, but please don't comment on it".

I don't want to come here anymore because people attack me and make out as if I am a dumbass.

You said it. I didn't. Please don't come here anymore if that's how you feel.

 

[ic]

...
I did not ask for a lecture highlighting my apparent lack of knowledge of defined TCP ports OK. I don't want to come here anymore because people attack me and make out as if I am a dumbass.

IT and the internet IS NOT MY FIELD. I am not working in that field either!

I made the post on the small chance that it might help someone else!

Get that through your thick skull!

Kei, dude, again you have either not read the posts of fellow forumites properly, or made an incorrect assumption that everyone is out to get you, either way you have lost the plot, and again you are attacking fellow forumites, do not be surprised if they do the same to you. My advice is that you get a prescription for valium or something - you seriously need to chill...

 

[Jerry]

a pot of pollyfiller to fill that chip might also do

 

[ic]

a big pot...or perhaps just pot...

Anyways, about port whatever being open on host whatever as an alternate, well from a security POV ports aren't just left open unless there's a good reason, obviously at some point in the past port whatever at host whatever was opened up for smtp by someone somewhere so that customers x y and/or z could bypass the sort of thing that WBS are doing now...