John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com 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 bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com 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,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:13:51 +0200, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= said:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com 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
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 john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It is on all Linux distros:
ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
So file bug reports.
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:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com 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
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com 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
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever else IANA might
say.
It's common knowledge that 465 *was* smtps. A decade
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 06:16:04 -0700
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Sep 29, 2010, at 6:10 AM, John Peach wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
It's common knowledge that 465 is smtps, whatever
John Peach john-na...@johnpeach.com writes:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:06:02 +0200
Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no 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
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 supported
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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 soon
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/tcpURL
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
Microsoft
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:39:33 +
Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us 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
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:
[...]
465
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
-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 server 67.202.37.63:465 does not
sound
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 couple of
Dont know if this may assist, but here is another from St Vincent...lime
network. Sunday 19th sep. 2010
http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult
RD
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 ra...@psg.com wrote:
23 matches
Mail list logo
