Jeroen van Aart wrote: > John Robinson wrote: >> I know people disapprove of the use of port 465, but since it's the only >> way of getting some MS Outlook versions to do SSL/TLS at all, I consider > > What is wrong with port 465? Isn't it the default smtp over ssl port? > > grep 465 /etc/services > ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
No, it's not. Your machine appears to be mis-configured. http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800ca795.html#wp1000937 "Port 465 is reserved for Cisco by the IANA for the URD mechanism so that no other applications can use this port." >> it a necessary evil. Blame Microsoft. > > Of course blaming that company, even at random, is often a safe bet. ;-) Apparently it was originally Netscape's fault, actually -- there were supposedly the ones who first claimed port 465 without a valid IANA registration. Microsoft is definitely to blame for its continued use in the wild years (decades?) after Cicso was granted exclusive use of the port, as Microsoft's popular Outlook and Outlook Express clients have failed to reliably implement TLS eight years after it was standardized in RFC 2487. - Marc -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
