SMTP Port 25 Inbound & Outbound

Looking at possibly switching to BT Infinity, however I run my own SMTP server, and so require port 25 open both inbound and outbound. Does BT therefore block or redirect port 25 in either direction?

I also use port SSL port 443 for webmail access. Does BT block this at all inbound?

Thanks,

Paul

According to their broadband usage policy they do not block port 25, 443 or any other inbound or outbound port:

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495...

I'm on infinity myself. I don't have an email or web server on my home network to test with but I am able to get an outbound connection on port 25 to a 3rd party smtp server.

In reply to a post by Evari:

According to their broadband usage policy they do not block port 25, 443 or any other inbound or outbound port:

http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10495...

I'm on infinity myself. I don't have an email or web server on my home network to test with but I am able to get an outbound connection on port 25 to a 3rd party smtp server.

A bit more info please? I don't see that on the page linked to, (maybe I'm missing it), and don't really want to follow all the links on it to find it.

Re Port 25 itself, that must be a fairly recent change. I configured someone last year and it was blocked for sending to the third party SMTP. I had to use the alternative port provided there.

Edit - The strikeout is because it didn't occur to me to click the down-arrows on the page. D'oh! The robertcrowther reply referring to the asterisks alerted me.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 13-Jan-13 13:13:17)

The link does say: Are any services, content, applications or protocols always blocked on this product? No

But it does have a ** next to to, so there could be some that are blocked.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

But it does have a ** next to to, so there could be some that are blocked.

Unlikely that Port 25 is

**This excludes any service, content, application or protocol that an ISP is required to block by UK law and child abuse images as informed by the list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation

Now you are disseminating misinformation yourself, that you accuse others of. What a hypocrite!

Edited by XRaySpeX (Sun 13-Jan-13 13:05:28)

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

The link does say: Are any services, content, applications or protocols always blocked on this product? No

But it does have a ** next to to, so there could be some that are blocked.

But it's posted on a website and according to you could be incomplete or inaccurate. Furthermore, it is in a section devoted to Traffic Management.

Traffic management is not normally understood to refer to SMTP access ports, and the context of the whole page is throughput control.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

The link does say: Are any services, content, applications or protocols always blocked on this product? No

But it does have a ** next to to, so there could be some that are blocked.

But it's posted on a website and according to you could be incomplete or inaccurate. Furthermore, it is in a section devoted to Traffic Management.

Traffic management is not normally understood to refer to SMTP access ports, and the context of the whole page is throughput control.

Stop throwing your toys out the pram. It was you who said you could not read the link, I just pointed out where the OP of the link was talking about.

"**This excludes any service, content, application or protocol that an ISP is required to block by UK law and child abuse images as informed by the list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation."

Read the small print.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

Stop throwing your toys out the pram. It was you who said you could not read the link, I just pointed out where the OP of the link was talking about.

But what you posted is nonsense as has already been pointed out.

Calm down

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Furthermore, it is in a section devoted to Traffic Management.

Traffic management is not normally understood to refer to SMTP access ports, and the context of the whole page is throughput control.

I would certainly take that Q to cover port blocking.

Orange uses the same pro forma to cover their blocking of Port 25:

In reference to help.orange.co.uk/orangeuk/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Command=com....:

Section 1: Traffic management in relation to your broadband product
Use and availability of services, content, application and protocols on this product

Are any services, content, applications or protocols always blocked on this product?** Yes

If so what? The only restriction we’ve put in place is an email setting that helps protect our customers against unsolicited emails, also known as spam. (For the techies amongst you this means we stop connections to non-Orange SMTP servers on port 25, and block NetBIOS)

because they are both following:
BSG Voluntary industry code of practice on traffic management transparency on broadband services Hot!

In that case, would you agree that BT do not block Port 25?

I would indeed! Especially as one BT user confirms it for Port 25 outgoing. That's enough for me; I'm willing to extrapolate it to all BT users, even tho' it might be stated in an official BT doc. on an official BT website, which might not be 100% complete/accurate .

In fact, I'm getting p*ssed of with reading robertcrowther's constant bleating, rudeness and misinformation. He needs to take a lengthy vacation "fixing" his own "machine".

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

I would indeed! Especially as one BT user confirms it for Port 25 outgoing. That's enough for me; I'm willing to extrapolate it to all BT users, even tho' it might be stated in an official BT doc. on an official BT website, which might not be 100% complete/accurate .

In fact, I'm getting p*ssed of with reading robertcrowther's constant bleating, rudeness and misinformation. He needs to take a lengthy vacation "fixing" his own "machine".

"bleating, rudeness and misinformation" You should not talk to yourself while looking in the mirror.

Now you're getting paranoid! I've hardly had any interaction with you. I've been mainly reading your posts and the responses they have engendered, and have fumed at the waste of time and hijacking of threads that you have caused.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Now you're getting paranoid! I've hardly had any interaction with you. I've been mainly reading your posts and the responses they have engendered, and have fumed at the waste of time and hijacking of threads that you have caused.

You say that you've hardly had any interaction with me, yet you use a swear word, well that sums you up then.

I do have an idea for this forum, why don't you all get together in real life rather than just posting insults to people on forums.

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Now you're getting paranoid! I've hardly had any interaction with you. I've been mainly reading your posts and the responses they have engendered, and have fumed at the waste of time and hijacking of threads that you have caused.

You say that you've hardly had any interaction with me, yet you use a swear word, well that sums you up then.

I do have an idea for this forum, why don't you all get together in real life rather than just posting insults to people on forums.

A sweary word? Where?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by robertcrowther:

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

Now you're getting paranoid! I've hardly had any interaction with you. I've been mainly reading your posts and the responses they have engendered, and have fumed at the waste of time and hijacking of threads that you have caused.

You say that you've hardly had any interaction with me, yet you use a swear word, well that sums you up then.

I do have an idea for this forum, why don't you all get together in real life rather than just posting insults to people on forums.

A sweary word? Where?

See here: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/t/4199189-re-smt...

That's disgusting. Censor avoidance as well

A warning - collaborate with people don't fight them.

I run my own home-lan email server and have inbound SMTP and IMAPS.
I also sent SMTP+SSL out to my VPS in the US.

I have also use incoming port 80 and 443 ok.

=> BT do not block inbound or outbound SMTP, IMAP(s), HTTP, HTTPS traffic.

Of course you have to sort out your own way of directing SMTP to you dynamic BT IP.

Hope this helps.

Thanks guys for the info and for pointing me in the direction of that page. I've ordered it, so time will tell, and i'll just have to work around any issues.