Slashdot Mirror


Verizon.net Finally Moving Email To Port 587

The Washington Post's Security Fix blog is reporting that Verizon, long identified as the largest ISP source of spam, is moving to require use of the submission port, 587, in outbound mail — and thus to require authentication. While spammers may still be able to relay spam through zombies in Verizon's network, if the victims let their mail clients remember their authentication credentials, at least the zombies will be easily identifiable. Verizon pledges to clean up their zombie problem quickly. We'll see.

5 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. What's this "finally" shit? by the+unbeliever · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can set up port 25 SMTP to require authentication for relay purposes, without having to configure end user's machines for another port.

  2. great, only 7 years late by Indy1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Verizon has been an epic sewer network for years, and has ignored their spam problem for years. If they want to clean up now (or make a lame attempt to clean up, as most telco's do), fine. It just means less work for iptables at my end.

    For those who are sick of Verizon's bullshit, here's my list (no promises this is complete, but it should have most of em) of Verizon's ip blocks.

      206.46.0.0/16
      66.12.0.0/14
      207.68.0.0/17
      71.96.0.0/11
      72.64.0.0/11
      72.42.0.0/18
      71.160.0.0/15
      71.162.0.0/16
      96.224.0.0/11
      98.108.0.0/14
      98.112.0.0/13
      68.160.0.0/14
      162.84.0.0/16
      162.83.0.0/16
      151.204.0.0/15
      138.88.0.0/21
      66.171.0.0/16
      66.14.128.0/17
      151.201.0.0/16
      138.89.0.0/16
      141.149.0.0/16
      141.150.0.0/15
      141.152.0.0/14
      141.156.0.0/15
      141.158.0.0/16
      68.160.192.0/18
      68.161.192.0/18
      66.14.0.0/17
      151.196.0.0/14
      151.200.0.0/14
      151.204.0.0/15
      129.44.0.0/16
      138.88.0.0/16
      64.222.0.0/15
      68.236.0.0/14
      70.104.0.0/13
      70.16.0.0/13
      71.96.0.0/11
      209.158.0.0/16
      209.159.0.0/19
      71.160.0.0/11
      173.64.0.0/12
      70.192.0.0/11
      66.174.0.0/16
      75.224.0.0/12
      75.240.0.0/13
      75.192.0.0/10
      97.0.0.0/10

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  3. Re:Finally, Verizon, Finally!! by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Informative

    I send out a newsletter with about 250 subscribers. After talking with SORBS, I contacted Verizon and found out that, even though we signed up for Verizon Business, they limit the amount of email I can send a week to 500 messages.

    Verizon Business accounts assume that you will probably be running a business, and have your own domain.

    If you do things this more professional way, there are no limits with Verizon DSL or FiOS (other than the speed you pay for being a "limit").

  4. Re:What ever happened to SSL and port 465? by jeaton · · Score: 4, Informative

    Port 587 was allocated by IANA and is documented by the IETF in RFC 2476, and the STARTTLS capability is documented in RFC 2487. It is not clear from the article whether Verizon is going to require STARTTLS or not. They may require STARTTLS for all mail on port 587 if they so choose.

    I assume that the "full-on SSL" that you would prefer refers to the non-standard port 465 ("SMTPs"). That port was chosen arbitrarily by Microsoft, has not been standardized by any common standards body, and was previously already allocated to "URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM".

    Why perpetuate non-standards when there are established standards which have the same functionality?

  5. Re:Finally, Verizon, Finally!! by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 4, Informative

    IANAL, Yet.
    Guess what, "The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) establishes requirements for those who send commercial email"
    Parent did not specify that it was commercial email and "newsletter" indicates that it likely is not. Even if they were of a commercial nature they would likely be exempted under the CAN-SPAM act as they would qualify as "relationship" messages.