On 02/23/2015 03:35 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
just a week or two ago I read discussion where the 465 was preferred,
because SSL is mandatory there, so there's no chance for clients to
authenticate without SSL encryption.
...just FYI.
On 23.02.15 15:45, Daniel Spies wrote:
Encryption in
On 23.02.15 14:46, Daniel Spies wrote:
>>The process configured to use msa.example.com (or more likely
>>
>> smtp.example.com to satisfy some autoconfiguration algorithms) would
>> listen on ports 587, 25, and 465 (unfortunately, there are still clients
>> that like to use this port for ssl-on-con
On Monday, February 23, 2015 03:35:57 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 23.02.15 14:46, Daniel Spies wrote:
> >>The process configured to use msa.example.com (or more likely
> >>
> >> smtp.example.com to satisfy some autoconfiguration algorithms) would
> >> listen on ports 587, 25, and 465 (unf
On 02/23/2015 03:35 PM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
just a week or two ago I read discussion where the 465 was preferred,
because SSL is mandatory there, so there's no chance for clients to
authenticate without SSL encryption.
...just FYI.
Encryption in my setup is mandatory, too. I just don'
On 23.02.15 14:46, Daniel Spies wrote:
The process configured to use msa.example.com (or more likely
smtp.example.com to satisfy some autoconfiguration algorithms) would
listen on ports 587, 25, and 465 (unfortunately, there are still clients
that like to use this port for ssl-on-connect)
On 0
On 02/23/2015 02:27 PM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
If your goal is to separate authenticated from unauthenticated mail, the place
to do it is not at the port, but at the IP address. Use a different server, and
publish new MX records. Here, we don’t use a different physical server, we have
two IP addre
> On 22 Feb 2015, at 02:13, Daniel Spies wrote:
>
> On 02/22/2015 02:47 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
>> Anyway, if your goal is to disable scanning on submission, it's
>> probably best to edit the master.cf submission service to not call
>> clamav-milter at all. (I would strongly recommend scanning al
Daniel Spies wrote:
> I don't get how you find it more appropriate to silently reject someone's
> e-mail
I don't. I don't know where you got that from - perhaps it's from seeing so
many examples of bad practice that's become the norm so you assume everyone is
that bad ?
_
