= Сообщение: 2344 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Luc Mccarragher 1:249/206 28 Mar 17 07:42:53 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 28 Mar 17 07:42:53 Тема : Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=298.ftscpubl@1:249/206+1d3f8367 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/5555+58da2786 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== ============================================================================== Re: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006 By: Michiel van der Vlist to Fred Riccio on Tue Mar 28 2017 10:46:29
MV> On Monday March 27 2017 09:07, you wrote to All:
FR>> There should be discussion regarding non-standard ports for email FR>> tunneling since many ISPs block the standard port, and it is not FR>> unheard of for fido nodes to run their own email servers.
MV> Yes, there are Fidonet sysop who run their own e-mail server. But none MV> that I know of run them on a non standard port. IMHO runnning an e-mail MV> server on any port other than 25 is useless. The e-mail system simply does MV> not provide for using a port other than 25 for connecting to a server MV> without prior arrangement. If you have the misfortune that your ISP blocks MV> port 25 on incoming, your are out of luck. For outgoing one can often use MV> the ISPs e-mail server as a relay, but an incoming blocked port 25 is a MV> show stopper.
My isp block the port 25, in and outgoing , i have a port forward from the DNS Problem Fix For this , Also have a real Email server , Email thru SBBS is not a Priority
MV> the ISPs e-mail server as a relay, but an incoming blocked port 25 is a MV> show stopper.
