Phil Chambers wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:14:13 +0000 W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On tcp/465, it is expected to establish an encrypted connection first
>>> and then speak ESMTP ("SMTP over TLS").
>> It *was* so expected. Long ago.
>>
>> Port 465 is reserved for IP Multicast, SSM and Cisco IP/TV
>>
>> It has nothing to do with e-mail in general or smtp in particular.
>> Not for a long time now.
>>
>
> The problem is that you need to have port 587 set up without TLS_on_connect
> to
> support clients that cannot use port 25, so you cannot use that with Outlook.
My recollection of XP & XP Pro is that it DOES now have the requisite
choices, at least in the 'Advanced' settings.
Anyone still using NT4, Win-9X/ME - even W2K - should *expect* to have
to upgrade by now - ELSE use another MUA. There is certanly no shortage
of those, fee or free.
> Outlook insists on TLS_on_connect for anything other than port 25, so you
> need
> another port if you are need to support Outlook. Port 465 seems to be the
> answer if you have that option. Once again it is MS and Outlook which are at
> the root of a problem!
>
> Phil.
Another port, yes. But that still does not justify ignoring IETF/IANA
w/r *465*. Especially since they reserve port 24 for 'any private email
system', and usurping the moribund 'Quick Mail' ports are less
problematic than bumping-heads with probes on a 'rendevous' internet-TV
setup port (465 tcp) will become if Cisco's scheme gets popular.
The obvious 'all around' option, 587 with tls_on_connect (acting as
legacy 465 SSL did), is not a welcome viewpoint here, so, I am "NOT
RECOMMENDING" that. even though it makes MUA setup dead-easy.
;-),
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/
