Port25 blocking

biohazardmailA number of hosting providers are blocking outgoing port25. This has implications for a lot of smaller senders who either want to run their own mail server or who use SMTP to send mail to their ESP.

What is port25

Port25 is the designated email sending channel. Much like websites are on port80 (or 8080) and DNS is on port53, email is sent over port25. Mostly.

Why block Port25

Port25 blocking is a way for hosting providers to control and monitor the mail their customers send. They can block any ongoing connections on port25. Typically the hosting company provides a mail relay for all customers to use.
The big benefit of port25 blocking is preventing infected machines from having access to big pipes to send malicious mail. While we mostly talk about botnets infecting Windows machines, there are a large number of compromised Linux machines, too. The hosting company can run outbound filters on the server they control and force all their customers to send through that server.

Challenges with Port25 blocking

Senders who are hosted at a company that blocks port25 can have problems sending bulk mail. Some senders use port25 to send mail from their internal servers to their ESP. If they’re behind a port25 block, this won’t work. There are, however, still ways to get email to the ESP.

What can you do if you’re port25 blocked?

First is contacting your provider and asking them to open port25 for your systems. We had to do this recently when spinning up IPv6. By default our provider blocks port25 on  IPv6. There were some hoops you need to jump through, but they took Steve only an hour or two to accomplish.
Second is contacting your ESP and seeing if they accept mail in ways other than port25. Some ESPs are supporting port587 for mail, others have APIs that don’t use SMTP for email submission.
Third is using a cloud service to generate your mail. I know a number of companies who use AWS systems to create messages that are then sent out through their ESP.
Overall, port25 blocking is a good thing. It is a security improvement. Yes, it does inconvenience some people, but usability is starting to take a back seat to security these days.

Security vendors and trust.
Email Innovations Summit in May 2016

Related Posts

Politics and Delivery

Last week I posted some deliverability advice for the DNC based on their acquisition of President Obama’s 2012 campaign database. Paul asked a question on that post that I think is worth some attention.

Read More

CASL botnet take down

biohazardmailThe CRTC served its first ever warrant as part of an international botnet takedown. The warrant was to take down a C&C (command and control) server for Win32/Dorkbot. International efforts to take down C&C servers take a lot of effort and work and coordination. I’ve only ever heard stories from folks involved but the scale and work that goes into these take downs is amazing.
Bots are still a problem. Even if we manage to block 99% of the botnet mail out there people are still getting infected. Those infections spread and many of the newer bots steal passwords, banking credentials and other confidential information.
This kind of crime is hard to stop, though, because the internet makes it so easy to live in one country, have a business in a third, have a shell corp in a fourth, and have victims in none of those places. Law enforcement across the globe has had to work together and develop new protocols and new processes to make these kinds of takedowns work.
 

Read More

Trawling through the junk folder

As a break from writing unit tests this morning I took a few minutes to go through my Mail.app junk folder, looking for false positives for mail delivered over the past six weeks.

We don’t do any connection level rejection here, so any mail sent to me gets delivered somewhere. Anything that looks like malware gets dumped in one folder and never read, anything that scores a ridiculously high spamassassin score gets dumped in another folder and never read, mailing lists get handled specially and everything else gets delivered to Mail.app to deal with. That means that Mail.app sees less of the ridiculously obvious spam and is mostly left to do bayesian filtering, and whatever other magic Apple implemented.
There were about thirty false positives, and they were all B2C bulk advertising mail. I receive a lot of 1:1 mail, transactional mail and B2B marketing mail and there were no false positives at all for any of those.
All the false positives were authenticated with both SPF and DKIM. All of them were for marketing lists I’d signed up for while making a purchase. All of them were “greymail” – mail that I’d agreed to receive, and that was inoffensive but not compelling. While I easily spotted all of them as false positives via the from address and subject, none of them were content I’d particularly missed.
Almost all of the false positives were sent through ESPs I recognized the name of, and about 80% of them were sent through just two ESPs (though that wasn’t immediately obvious, as one of them not only uses random four character domain names, it uses several different ones – stop doing that).
If you’d asked me to name two large, legitimate ESPs from whom I recalled receiving blatant, blatant spam recently, it would be those same two ESPs. Is Mail.app is picking up on my opinions of the mail those ESPs are sending? It’s possible – details specific to a particular ESPs mail composition and delivery pipelines are details that a bayesian learning filter may well recognize as efficient tokens.

Read More