From: "Carl Gehr" Received: from mxout2.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.166] verified) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 439003 for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:18 -0400 Received: from mxin2.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.176]) by mxout2.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZtaM-000CgJ-BJ for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:23:02 -0400 Received: from mail-out3.fuse.net ([216.68.8.177] helo=smtp3.fuse.net) by mxin2.mailhop.org with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GZtaL-000EZK-VS for os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:22:42 -0400 Received: from gx4.fuse.net ([208.102.7.45]) by smtp3.fuse.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with ESMTP id <20061017182236.RNTV16850.smtp3.fuse.net@gx4.fuse.net> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:22:36 -0400 Received: from localhost ([208.102.7.45]) by gx4.fuse.net (InterMail vG.1.02.00.02 201-2136-104-102-20041210) with ESMTP id <20061017182236.XVYN11137.gx4.fuse.net@localhost> for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:22:36 -0400 To: "OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List" Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:22:32 -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: <20061017182236.XVYN11137.gx4.fuse.net@localhost> X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:10:11 -0700, Bob wrote: >** 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. > Well, that's good to know! Possibly, based on your comments about 587, that is the reason I've not had much success with the ATTGlobal ASMTP server. Maybe I also need to change the port. I've tried asking their Helpless Desk, but . . . Well, that's another rant that I'll spare you from. But, it's one of the reasons I'm looking for a new ISP that also provides good support for nationwide or preferably worldwide dial in service. Dial in service has been my alternative when I could not get to an outbound server via a hotel, etc. THANKS, Bob! Carl