Port 25 unblock - desperately need advice

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

I'm trying to switch from a microwave based internet connection to U-verse 2wire DSL. The DSL service is mostly working however, my alarm system requires the use of port 25 for sending alerts to a 3rd party email server. Seems so simple. I've tried "everthing" to get the block removed. Tried using AT&T online chat 5 or so times - twice refered to connectech. The other times the techs knew what needed to be done but I've ended up being disconnected before the block was removed. Tried calling for support and again, was refered to connectech with them wanting to log on and "fix my outlook problem". I'm now many hours into this nightmare.

Anyone have some advice as to how to go about getting the block removed?

-mick

texasguy37 · ‎05-18-2009

You be able to call Technical Support and have that port unblocked. I believe there is a fee for unblocking port 25.

If you are unable to get this resolved by calling AT&T, send a PM to Alex who is an AT&T Community Manager on this forum.

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

texasguy37 wrote:
You be able to call Technical Support and have that port unblocked. I believe there is a fee for unblocking port 25.

As I wrote, AT&T Technical support has not worked out for me either via a call or chat. From what I've read elsewhere there should not be a fee for getting the block removed. The problem I've had with Connectech is that the techs don't seem to know what I'm talking about and keep asking questions about Outlook - paying a fee for that doesn't seem like a good idea.

DonNewcomb · ‎01-09-2012

Does the alarm service allow the use of any port other than 25? It seems that accepting unauthenticated input on port 25 is open to all sorts of abuse. If I were an alarm service I'd want to use a different, secured port.

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

DonNewcomb wrote:
Does the alarm service allow the use of any port other than 25? It seems that accepting unauthenticated input on port 25 is open to all sorts of abuse. If I were an alarm service I'd want to use a different, secured port.

The smtp connection is secured by TLS.

-mick

DonNewcomb · ‎01-09-2012

eeeyow wrote:
DonNewcomb wrote:
Does the alarm service allow the use of any port other than 25? It seems that accepting unauthenticated input on port 25 is open to all sorts of abuse. If I were an alarm service I'd want to use a different, secured port.
The smtp connection is secured by TLS.

-mick

OK. That's good. Still, so many ISPs block port 25 by default that I'd think the alarm company should have some alternate port available. Just MHO.

SomeJoe7777 · ‎01-30-2008

eeeyow wrote:

The smtp connection is secured by TLS.

-mick

TLS-secured port 25 is unusual and non-standard. Normally, TLS-secured SMTP is available on port 587. You're sure the alarm company's mail server will not accept a connection on 587?

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

TLS-secured port 25 is unusual and non-standard. Normally, TLS-secured SMTP is available on port 587. You're sure the alarm company's mail server will not accept a connection on 587?

TLS on port 25 is both very common and very standard - see RFC 2037 - especially since port 25 is the only common email port between email servers. The alerts are not just sent to the alarm company but rather any email address I can configure ie the alarm system is acting as a small email server itself. And lastly, the alarm is just my "today" problem.

cwicklein · ‎02-22-2012

A level two support rep. can do this in a couple of minutes. Any attempt to direct you to ConnectTech is most likely a lack of understanding of the difference between inbound and outbound connections.

JefferMC · ‎11-16-2009

eeeyow wrote:
TLS on port 25 is both very common and very standard - see RFC 2037 - especially since port 25 is the only common email port between email servers. The alerts are not just sent to the alarm company but rather any email address I can configure ie the alarm system is acting as a small email server itself. And lastly, the alarm is just my "today" problem.

I looked up 2037... I think you got the wrong RFC number, because RFC 2037 has to do with SNMP, not SMTP.

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

JefferMC wrote:
I looked up 2037... I think you got the wrong RFC number, because RFC 2037 has to do with SNMP, not SMTP.

Sorry - major dyslexia - The RFC is 3207.

-mick

marnixava · ‎02-29-2012

I had this same issue. When I converted to U-verse I could no longer send emails out. Outgoing connections to port 25 were being blocked. Found that AT&T provides a mail server that you can use, but you have to use smtps on port 465. I was able to get it working (using the Postfix software on my Linux box), but their server (outbound.att.net) would only accept messages with an envelope sender address set to my new AT&T email address using my new AT&T password. For your purposes (sending an alert message) that might suffice. You can still set the header sender address and other header items to whatever you want.

In my research I had also found (somewhere) that for a fee AT&T would unblock port 25. I hate spam and can understand taking precautions, but I'm not too happy about that rule, especially when their workaround forces me to use my AT&T email address for the envelope sender address. I see no reason for that requirement when I'm already authenticating with my AT&T account.

eeeyow · ‎02-20-2012

I already found the sender address issue which in itself is fine - but don't block port 25 too.

At this point it looks like I will be going back to my microwave setup which I fortunately haven't cancelled yet.

-mick

kathy ryan · ‎03-02-2012

I am having the same issue.

DonNewcomb · ‎01-09-2012

marnixava wrote: I see no reason for that requirement when I'm already authenticating with my AT&T account.

Any ISP that does not default block port 25 is laying themselves open to abuse and having their network blacklisted by other ISPs and e-mail services. When people get SPAM they complain to the admins of the network that originated the SPAM. It's a lot of work fielding those complaints. Blocking port 25 prevents virus-infected PCs from flooding the network with SPAM. Frankly it would be nuts to leave that port open.