On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 17:36, Greg A. Woods wo...@planix.com wrote:
This might seem odd to some for me to say, but I really don't understand
why you're trying so vainly to be such a stickler for the so-called
standards in this case.
IANA's port numbers are more a Best Common Practice than a
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
receiving domain supports SMTPS?
Clearly SMTPS would not be an alternative to SMTP for MX hosts,
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with this. I think there should be an SMTPS.
Rhetorical question: How would a sending domain know that a particular
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:24, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:56:15AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with this. ?I think there should be an SMTPS.
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 14:46, Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 02:35:13PM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
Try it an see. If it fails to connect or times out, and local policy
and/or message parameters allow this, fall back to SMTP. Specific
detail
On 2010-05-28 11:56 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
FYI, I do run SSH on various unassigned ports. That's because I
don't want the log floods I'd get if I had SSH facing the wild on
port 22 (I've had on a couple days over a million dictionary attempts
to root, all unsuccessful, but occupying 99% of the
At Tue, 25 May 2010 16:00:36 -0400, Phil Howard ttip...@gmail.com wrote:
Subject: Re: which port to use for SSL/TLS?
At this point I'm just not going to support SMTP wrapped/tunneled over
SSL/TLS ... on any port. But just in case something comes up where I
have to support it, I do have
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
I get mine from IANA and 465 is assigned differently.
what OS do you run? if smtps != 465 on your system, then the default
master.cf doesn't
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:09:09AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
This is the de-facto standard port for the service. Shoot yourself in
the foot
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:09:09AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
This is the de-facto standard port for the service.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 13:41, Kris Deugau kdeu...@vianet.ca wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:09:09AM -0400, Phil Howard wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me
Phil Howard a écrit :
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 18:14, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
Good enough reason for me to not use it.
if you don't need it, then you don't need it:)
- if you have customers with old outlook, then you'd better offer
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 18:03, mouss mo...@ml.netoyen.net wrote:
if you mean wrapper mode ssl (aka smtps), then
$ grep smtps /etc/services
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
this is non standard. but it's used by outlook and by other people.
in the old days,
On 2010-05-24 9:33 AM, Phil Howard wrote:
Is it the case that 465 once was assigned as smtps and later retracted
and re-assigned differently? Or was it never official at all and the
/etc/services file you have isn't just an old one, but an unofficial
one? I get mine from IANA and 465 is
Phil Howard a écrit :
[snip]
Is it the case that 465 once was assigned as smtps and later retracted
and re-assigned differently? Or was it never official at all and the
/etc/services file you have isn't just an old one, but an unofficial
one?
As far as I know, it was never standardised.
On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with always on SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will
do), and the RFCs are coming up empty. I
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 14:48, Matt Hayes domin...@slackadelic.com wrote:
On 5/21/2010 2:33 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with always on SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I
On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:35:55 -0400
Phil Howard ttip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:29, John Peach post...@johnpeach.com
wrote:
465 is for SMTP over SSL, which is deprecated.
What is deprecated? Using port 465? Or doing SMTP over SSL?
SMTP over SSL
Unfortunately, I
Phil Howard:
I'm doing optional STARTTLS (e.g. smtpd_tls_security_level=may and
smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks,permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination)
on port 25.
What should I be doing on port 587?
There's an example submission (port 587) service in recent
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:40, John Peach post...@johnpeach.com wrote:
Why not use smtpd_tls_security_level = encrypt on port 587?
The remote site involved is tunneling these connections through something
like SSL, as far as I can tell. It works fine on port 993 for IMAP.
Why is SMTP over
On 2010-05-21 4:04 PM, Phil Howard wrote:
OK, I can do SMTP over TLS/SSL on port 465 (with a slight and unlikely
risk of usage collision). So what is port 587 for?
? This question has been answered at least 3 or 4 times in this very thread.
port 465 is for SMTP+SSL
this is DEPRECATED and has
Phil Howard a écrit :
I'm trying to find out what port is to be used with always on SSL/TLS
(e.g. no STARTTLS command needed, it just does SSL/TLS once the TCP
connection is made, which I understand smtpd_tls_wrappermode=yes will
do), and the RFCs are coming up empty. I thought it was 587.
22 matches
Mail list logo
