Jeroen van Aart wrote: > W B Hacker wrote: >> 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 > > What is easier to ignore, IETF/IANA, or a complaining user base who > suddenly find their email (their internet) is broken?
It isn't *that* hard to take care of hteir needs. If all else fails, I've talked folks through downloading and configuring SeaMonkey, Mozilla Suite, Opera - all of which have mailers, not to mention Thunderbird, and - IIRC about an even dozen other for-free MUA for Windows. > I assume 465 at > some point was "offically" for encrypted smtp, then it changed. No need to 'assume'. The whole dozen-plus year who-struck-John is online. And - AFAIK, at the end of the day it never did get final 'official' approval. 587 had overtaken it. That said, I think IANA were right wankers to not have just published a warning of 'final' change, then let 465 go 'fallow' for - say another 2 to 5 years - and given Cisco something else that would cause *them* less conflict as well. Picture their situation 'I can't get may mail since I started using your net TV!' Needless conflict. A look at the port assignments reveal quite a number still reserved for protocols that fell into disuse so long ago that even we greybeards have a hard time remembering what used them. Many should be re-assigned as the only thing using many of them nowadays are WinCrobes. There are DB's online mapping the myriad of ports those critters 'prefer' - none legally, of course. > But I am > sure anyone knows how hard it is to get rid of ingrown habits. > Easier if we at least make the effort to migrate folks to BCP (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). If mailadmins will not - who will? Ever? Micros**t, maybe? > As a side note, I see port 0 recently got assigned, which feels a bit > unfair, it should be reserved (for the sake of it :-) > > spr-itunes 0/tcp Shirt Pocket netTunes > spl-itunes 0/tcp Shirt Pocket launchTunes > David Nanian <dnanian&shirt-pocket.com> 28 September 2007 > > Regards, > Jeroen > It gets dumber than that. The late Jon Postel is still listed as point-of-contact for a number of protocols. He was a marvelously helpful and influential person, and I wouldn't be opposed to a monument of some sort - but this is not a good choice - I doubt even he can respond to email these days. Best, 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/
