Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Translate outgoing destination ports' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Translate outgoing destination ports
Authored by: dschneiderch on Oct 21, '09 12:39:06PM

Would this solution work for email too? For example, my university only uses port 25 for email but my isp at home blocks port 25. Unfortunately I don't understand most of what was written but was wondering what sort of changes would have to be made.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Translate outgoing destination ports
Authored by: Anonymous on Oct 22, '09 01:22:30PM

The example given in the hint aligns two port numbers where neither client nor server can be altered. The firewall, ipfw, was used as the intermediary to solve this by sending traffic from local port 389 to remote port 712 and vice versa. The translation happens on the local machine, so the network carries traffic on port 712.

In your case, the client software is largely irrelevant: you need to avoid port 25 on the network, but the remote machine is only listening on port 25. Note also that the hint would not have been necessary if the client software had the ability to alter the port it uses; and I can't think of an email program where you can't alter the SMTP port.

If I were you, I'd make absolutely certain they don't offer an alternative port for SMTP. It seems strange they wouldn't. Have you tried port 587? That's the usual alternative. You might want to track down an actual technical person, too and ask them.

Good luck!



[ Reply to This | # ]
Translate outgoing destination ports
Authored by: GaelicWizard on Oct 27, '09 11:10:58AM

The University of California should know better, but doesn't. At least at the Riverside campus, SMTP is _only_ available on port 25. Suck. Any given ISP will, however, un-block port 25 if you explain this to them. I've done it with both cable and phone ISPs.

JP

---
Pell



[ Reply to This | # ]