On 8/30/2013 10:12 AM, Terry Gilsenan wrote:
> I am not talking about implementing SMTP on UDP, I am taking about the
> possibility of adding a side-channel for bulk data that would use UDP.
I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned this yet. It seems there's a
far simpler solution to the descr
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Glenn English
Sent: Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:52 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]
On Aug 30, 2013
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Glenn English
Sent: Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:52 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]
On Aug 30, 2013
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Jan P. Kessler
Sent: Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:21 AM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]
>&
On Aug 30, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Terry Gilsenan wrote:
> As attachments get larger, and end users use email rather than ftp for file
> transfer for convenience sake, a UDP implementation, perhaps using UDP as a
> data streaming channel could become a very useful configuration, and the
> transfer s
As attachments get larger, and end users use email rather than ftp for file
transfer for convenience sake, a UDP implementation, perhaps using UDP as a
data streaming channel could become a very useful configuration, and the
transfer speed over high latency links (think satellite etc) could i
) could improve
immensely.
T
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Friday, 30 August 2013 12:15 PM
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Subject: Re: newbie check Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check
On 08/30/2013 02:49 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> submission 587/udp
>
> I've been doing this for a long time, and I've never seen anyone try
> to do SMTP over anything other than TCP.
You'll see this for a lot of services in the file. The old practice was
for IANA to assign both tcp and ud
>> submission 587/udp
I've been doing this for a long time, and I've never seen anyone try
to do SMTP over anything other than TCP.
Regards,
John Levine, postmas...@cauce.org, CAUCE postmaster
http://www.cauce.org
On 08/30/2013 08:53 AM, Terry Gilsenan wrote:
> There are no MTAs that accept submission on UDP, yet, so maybe reserved
> for future use?
No, it's just the assignment from IANA. In the past when either a TCP
or UDP port assignment was requested both were assigned, this does not
mean that there is
On 8/29/2013 3:43 PM, Glenn English wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote:
>
>> $ grep 587 /etc/services
>> submission 587/tcp
>> submission 587/udp
>
> That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions?
>
> I looked at RFC6409 (the newest I could find on
heck Was [Re: port 25 submission settings sanity check]
On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> $ grep 587 /etc/services
> submission 587/tcp
> submission 587/udp
That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions?
I looked at RFC6409 (the newest I coul
On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:18 PM, LuKreme wrote:
> $ grep 587 /etc/services
> submission 587/tcp
> submission 587/udp
That's what mine says too. Does Postfix accept UDP submissions?
I looked at RFC6409 (the newest I could find on 587), and all it said was "port
587" -- the protocol isn't
On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:34 , Glenn English wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
>> --On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM +0900 peter evans
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Combine these two into one. put permit_sasl_ at the top
>>> as it is a first match wins thi
On Aug 29, 2013, at 1:37 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.08.2013 21:34, schrieb Glenn English:
>> I'm under the impression that 587 is to be used by my local users
>> (email clients to local MTA), and 25 is used by MTA<->MTA. Is this wrong?
>
> correct
>
>> And /etc/services says:
>>
Am 29.08.2013 21:34, schrieb Glenn English:
> I'm under the impression that 587 is to be used by my local users
> (email clients to local MTA), and 25 is used by MTA<->MTA. Is this wrong?
correct
> And /etc/services says:
>
>> auth 113/tcp authentication tap ident
>
> not 587
On Aug 29, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:59 PM +0900 peter evans wrote:
>
>
>> Combine these two into one. put permit_sasl_ at the top
>> as it is a first match wins thing. And of course, re-educate
>> your client that auth belo
17 matches
Mail list logo
