On 3/3/12 4:17 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Philip Prindeville > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Well, that's wrong. Going to IANA, I see: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xml >> >> <record> >> <name>urd</name> >> <protocol>tcp</protocol> >> <description>URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM</description> >> <number>465</number> >> </record> >> >> 465 has *never* been allocated to SMTP. Period. >> >> It was hijacked. >> > > Hijacked is pretty strong wording - it was officially proposed, > conditionally accepted, then later dropped: > > http://www.imc.org/ietf-apps-tls/mail-archive/msg00204.html > > I guess that's the way committees roll...
Didn't know all of the backstory to that, thanks. Seems a bit reckless that anyone started pushing out production software using ports that we tentatively allocated but not yet officially approved. Then again, I remember releasing the first implementation of RFC-1048 at FTP Software with the vendor-specific information cookie being set to OREO before Jon Postel put the kibosh on that... -Philip _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
