On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:50:00AM +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > Dean Brooks wrote: >> Bill Hacker wrote: >>> 'Legacy', perhaps, but not 'non-standard' w/r our use of >>> those two ports. >> Using it on 587 is non-standard > The IANA registration has not specified port 587 for any > particular protocol, smtp or otherwise: > > submission 587/tcp Submission > submission 587/udp Submission > > By definition, a 'submission' port NOT being 'public facing', > one should not expect any more detail than that any time soon. [snip pointless justification of why W B Hacker is correct, and everyone else in the world is wrong.]
I know, let's all advocate overriding sane client defaults in everything we reply to. I mean, that wouldn't be confusing for new posters or people asking questions, would it? Bill, please stop acting like Greg A Woods (and his EHLO verification) over this. It's boring for the rest of us who have to read your posts. Cheers MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/ (Please use this address to reply) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
