> http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult
wow! lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more
and more.
randy
I'm sure it's a lot better than our Afghanistan satellite systems (84%
uptime on two of them, 41% on the third). Luckily we load balance the
WAN ports so it's not *too* painful.
Jeff
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-67
Randy Bush writes:
>> http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult
>
> wow! lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more
> and more.
hmm, 587 hacking, issue with configuration, or typo?
Direct TCP connections to re
On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> "Cannot establish SSL with SMTP server 67.202.37.63:465" does not
> sound like a 587 problem to me.
>
> netalyzr folks? comment?
Cisco PIX?
On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> "Cannot establish SSL with SMTP server 67.202.37.63:465" does not
> sound like a 587 problem to me.
>
> netalyzr folks? comment?
Sorry, I hit send too soon ...
I've heard from a couple of people that the PIX will remap 587 (and 25)
to oddball por
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:30:06 PDT, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
> I've heard from a couple of people that the PIX will remap 587 (and 25)
> to oddball ports if you fiddle the config just right. Given all the
> other bogosity that box does with SMTP I wonder if there's truth to the
> rumour. (I haven't f
> -Original Message-
> From: Lyndon Nerenberg [mailto:lyn...@orthanc.ca]
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:30 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Randy in Nevis
>
> On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> > "Cannot establish SSL with SMTP s
On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> "Cannot establish SSL with SMTP server 67.202.37.63:465" does not
>> sound like a 587 problem to me.
>>
>> netalyzr folks? comment?
>
> Sorry, I hit send too soon ...
>
> I've heard from a
Owen DeLong writes:
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>> On 10-09-27 7:20 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>>> "Cannot establish SSL with SMTP server 67.202.37.63:465" does not
>>> sound like a 587 problem to me.
>>>
>>> netalyzr folks? comment?
>>
>> Sorry, I hit send too
On 27 Sep 2010, at 8:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port for STMPS.
It is? That's not what's recorded at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
urd 465/tcpURL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
igmpv3lite 465/udp
On 9/28/10 7:49 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 8:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port for STMPS.
>
> It is? That's not what's recorded at:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>
> urd 465/tcpU
> >> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port for STMPS.
> >
> > It is? That's not what's recorded at:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
> >
> > urd 465/tcpURL Rendesvous Directory for SSM
> > igmpv3lite 465/udpIGMP over UDP for SSM
> >
>
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:39:33 +
Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> > >> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port
> > >> for STMPS.
> > >
> > > It is? That's not what's recorded at:
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
> > >
> > > urd 465/tcpURL Rendesvo
Whether recorded with IANA or not, it certainly is what you will find if you
google:
smtp ssl port
It's also what just about every MUA and MTA I've seen expects for that purpose.
Owen
On Sep 28, 2010, at 7:49 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 8:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
John Peach writes:
> It is on all Linux distros:
>
> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
Bjørn
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200
Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Peach writes:
>
> > It is on all Linux distros:
> >
> > ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>
> So file bug reports.
With IANA?
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might say.
>
>
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= said:
> John Peach writes:
>
> > It is on all Linux distros:
> >
> > ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>
> So file bug reports.
bug-repo...@iana.org seems to bounce.
pgpKVhunwIKfg.pgp
Description: PG
On 2010-09-29, at 12:25, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= said:
>> John Peach writes:
>>
>>> It is on all Linux distros:
>>>
>>> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>>
>> So file bug reports.
>
> bug-
On Sep 29, 2010, at 7:26 AM, John Peach wrote:
> With IANA?
>
> It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might say.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4409.txt
Here's what they've had to say over time:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010519080902/http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-n
John Peach writes:
> It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might say.
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an "obsolete" tag.
Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL are using STARTTLS on
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Peach writes:
>
> > It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
> > say.
>
> It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
> never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an "obsolete" t
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
> Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> John Peach writes:
>>
>>> It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
>>> say.
>>
>> It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
>> ne
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:16:04 -0700
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
> > Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >
> >> John Peach writes:
> >>
> >>> It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
> >>> say.
> >>
>
John Peach writes:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
> Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
>> It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
>> never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an "obsolete" tag.
>> Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL are using STARTTLS on
>> por
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade ago. But it has
> never gone anywhere, and it is way overdue for an "obsolete" tag.
> Everyone actually caring about SMTP over SSL are using STARTTLS on port
> 25 and 587.
Microsoft MUAs only supporte
25 matches
Mail list logo
