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.
Yes, there are Fidonet sysop who run their own e-mail server. But none that I know of run them on a non standard port. IMHO runnning an e-mail server on any port other than 25 is useless. The e-mail system simply does not provide for using a port other than 25 for connecting to a server without prior arrangement. If you have the misfortune that your ISP blocks port 25 on incoming, your are out of luck. For outgoing one can often use the ISPs e-mail server as a relay, but an incoming blocked port 25 is a show stopper.
But... If you think there is way to circumvent a blocked port 25 in a way usable in Fidonet, write a proposal and if/when it becomes common practise, the FTSC will document it.
As a personal note, I would like to say, that I never liked using e-mail as a transport medium for Fidonet. At one time it may have been a good idea as there was nothing else other than POTS, but a serious problem with e-mail is that there is no direct feedback about the status of the mail. You never know if it arrived on the system of the addressee if there is no reply. It is similar to routed mail.
Also when I still ran Irex, I experimented with it. I found that listing an e-mail address in the nodelist is a bad idea. I ran the experiment for over a year and I did not get a single legitimate Fdionet message via e-mail other than the few I sent from my own point system for testing. It did attact a lot of spam though.
FR> Additions/Changes are marked with ">" in column 1.
