Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2008-01-15 at 03:22 +0000, W B Hacker wrote: >> Though I agree (from actual testing) that use of port 80 is a bad idea, >> for smtp - the above does not apply in practice. > > It does when you want to provide _both_ SMTP and HTTP on the same IP on > the same port, concurrently.
Yes, indeed. > > There are other sets of protocols where you can run a daemon service > which supports more than one protocol and dispatches accordingly; the > cases I know of all rely upon the client sending first. Where the > server sends first, it theoretically would be possible, if you can come > up with a greeting banner which is compliant to both protocols. > Probably just about possible in some cases. > To one extent it *seems* as simple as adding to the list of advertised services (and handling the choice correctly). But re-inventing all common browsers is certainly not on even if MUA's would play correctly with it. And - given the plethora of better options that are known to work just fine from airport lounges, hotels, coffee shops, fast-food outlets and bookstores during my own globe-trotting, I cannot think of a good reason - or need - to want to do it at all. ;-) > None of which helps when SMTP sends the banner first and the client is > supposed to wait for the banner first, whilst HTTP speaks first and > there are then inherent race conditions. A multi-second timeout for > waiting for an HTTP request would be possible but would be far too > fragile for use in a production environment with paying customers. > > -Phil > ACK - http response delays are generally more 'in your face' than IMAP/POP/smtp at that point... Bill -- ## 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/
