From: "Bob" Received: from mxout1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.165] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 438956 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:11:00 -0400 Received: from mxin1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.175]) by mxout1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZtOO-00002T-D4 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:10:42 -0400 Received: from sneakemail.com ([38.113.6.61] helo=monkey.sneakemail.com) by mxin1.mailhop.org with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZtOO-0006Cg-3x for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:10:20 -0400 Received: (qmail 14141 invoked by uid 501); 17 Oct 2006 18:10:13 -0000 Received: (sneakemail censored 9650-50926 #1); 17 Oct 2006 18:10:13 -0000 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:10:11 -0700 To: os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: Another weird motel situation MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9650-50926@sneakemail.com> X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) ** Reply to message from "Carl Gehr os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com" on Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:45 -0400 (EDT) > I've tried to send, but never tried a different port. Knowing zero > about ports, is 587 supposed to be a standard alternative? Or, does > each ISP offer their own to try to make it more difficult to use by > 'unwanted' users? There are two standard alternate ports for an email server. RFC2476 describes port 587 which uses a secure login to authenticate the user. RFC2554 describes port 465 which is to be a filtered input port to allow a user to use it instead of port 25 but also stop spam from going through. Any port can be substituted for any other port as long as you know which port the service is on. Some ISPs do use none standard ports for access but not many as it requires their users to be more knowledgable about how to set up their computer. -- Robert Blair