Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

target/remote: Add smtp_ports option for remote targets #767

Closed

Conversation

johnweldon
Copy link

Allow ports other than 25 to be used for outgoing SMTP attempts.

This change keeps the default behavior the same, but allows overriding it with configuration.

(Will rebase if/after #766 is merged)

@foxcpp
Copy link
Owner

foxcpp commented Feb 22, 2025

NACK. Ports 587 and 465 are used for mail submission (as defined by RFC 4409) by user agents, not for mail relay that uses exclusively port 25. While workarounds such as this PR may work in some situations, this is non-standard behavior. Besides, recommending to use 587 over default 25 brings no additional security. The correct course of action is to request port 25 unblock from ISP or to forward outbound messages via an external host (usually ISP-provided). In my experience, many VPS providers are willing to unblock port 25 when requested via support ticket. Notable exceptions include "cloud" providers but most of them also provide outbound email services that can serve a as a proxy.

@johnweldon
Copy link
Author

Is there any benefit to this feature if it's documented differently, or would you rather not merge it in any form?

Thanks for the review.

Allow ports other than 25 to be used for outgoing SMTP attempts.

This change keeps the default behavior the same, but allows overriding
it with configuration.
@johnweldon johnweldon force-pushed the jw4/target-remote-smtp_ports branch from a1637ae to 0a05d6f Compare February 22, 2025 22:13
@foxcpp
Copy link
Owner

foxcpp commented Feb 27, 2025

I don't think there is any benefit in this feature.

@foxcpp foxcpp closed this Feb 27, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants