From: "Carl Gehr" Received: from mxout1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.165] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 438850 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:31:06 -0400 Received: from mxin1.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.175]) by mxout1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZslI-000PQS-EB for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:30:50 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.fuse.net ([216.68.8.177] helo=smtp3.fuse.net) by mxin1.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZslG-0007Fs-H8 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:54 -0400 Received: from gx6.fuse.net ([208.102.7.45]) by smtp3.fuse.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20061017172949.LFZV16850.smtp3.fuse.net@gx6.fuse.net> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:49 -0400 Received: from localhost ([208.102.7.45]) by gx6.fuse.net (InterMail vG.1.02.00.02 201-2136-104-102-20041210) with ESMTP id <20061017172948.MSKQ10743.gx6.fuse.net@localhost> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:48 -0400 To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:29:45 -0400 (EDT) Reply-To: "Carl Gehr" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2382 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: Another weird motel situation Message-Id: <20061017172948.MSKQ10743.gx6.fuse.net@localhost> X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:57:05 -0700, Neil Waldhauer wrote: >On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:47:19 -0400 (EDT), "Carl Gehr" > wrote: > >> PMMail already has the abiltiy to specify a port. >> [I'm using PMMail 2.20.2382 for OS/2 Warp 4.5] >> >> So, what should I ask for? A mini-SMTP server to be built into PMMail? > >Oh. I've got PMMail 2.90.0.0082, and I see that it does. You did try to send >mail, and failed. My ISP also offers port 587 for sending. Many wireless >providers don't block port 587. > >A mini SMTP server might be blocked just the same. > >Neil 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? That PMMail version is new to me. Looks like a more recent level and I've been thinking I had the latest level available. The most recent PMMAIL.EXE I have is: 3-18-02 5:05p Is yours more recent? Carl