Hi Ken, > > > We won't find standards support for it: 465 for SMTPS was revoked > > > by IANA (in 1998!) and reassigned to another service. But as long > > > as AT&T (I know), Verizon (I think), and whoever else require it, > > > we're stuck with it. > > > > No we're not. Nor should we support it. The standards-based > > alternatives are available and should me used. > > Sigh. I went around and around on this when I implemented it. The > reality is a) there are some ISPs (not just AT&T) that it's the ONLY > thing they implement,
Is it definitely the only thing AT&T support? Has David opened a ticket with them asking why they can't also support the new allocation? ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTPS says Even in 2013, there are still services that continue to offer the deprecated SMTPS interface on port 465 in addition to (or instead of!) the RFC-compliant message submission interface on the port 587 defined by RFC 6409.[6] Service providers that maintain port 465 do so because[7] older Microsoft applications (including Entourage v10.0) do not support STARTTLS[8], and thus not the smtp-submission standard (ESMTPS on port 587). The only way for service providers to offer those clients an encrypted connection is to maintain port 465. Cheers, Ralph. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
