On 2008-01-14 at 15:18 -0800, chuckee wrote: > Because port 587 is for authenticated SMTP, I do not think I can or should > use it for this.
To clear up a misconception: port 587 is for mail submission. It isn't strictly true to say that 587 is authenticated and 25 isn't. It happens that some programs get confused by unexpected authentication on port 25 so it's safer to keep that to 587. It happens that authentication on port 587 is a Best Current Practice. Not a standard, but not something that should be *lightly* ignored. Considered and rejected on the basis of hard evidence of a working alternative approach, fine. If you're happy with your authentication and access control scheme, then you're free to use it on port 587. The key point is that 587 strictly indicates initial mail submission and the server is free to, indeed should, apply any and all fix-ups and initial submission policy controls on that port without worrying about various remote MTAs -- the only clients to be concerned with are within the server operator's administrative domain. Which, for a commercial provider, is rather broad. RFCs: 4409 Message Submission for Mail -- this is the port 587 RFC, obsoleting RFC 2476 5068 Email Submission Operations: Access and Accountability Requirements -- aka BCP 134 But no, as explained there's no tenable way to have SMTP and HTTP share a port; you're stuck using a second IP address with a new hostname. -Phil -- ## 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/
