SeattleServer.com wrote: > On Thursday 26 October 2006 01:57, W B Hacker wrote: >> and, of course, the 'general case' - that of using, instead of port 25, >> port 24 - which was set aside for that purpose [1] long ago - so as to >> segregate such traffic from the 'rest of' the smtp arrivals. > > s/24/587/. >
Umm ... yasss... - Despite the original IANA intentions, for 'any private mail system' port 24 *has* been abused by 'Back Orifice' as a control port, and may reasonably be found to be firewalled off... Might still be of use *inside* the firewall, but otherwise, perhaps useless nowadays. Thanks, Bill -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
