[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] extending nmh for smtps support?

From: Valdis . Kletnieks
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] extending nmh for smtps support?
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 11:26:51 -0500

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:30:31 EST, JerryHeyman said:

> I see that at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers, port 465 is called
> "urd", but on my Mandriva 2009.1 Linux system I see:
> address@hidden smtp]$ grep 465 /etc/services
> smtps           465/tcp                         # SMTP over SSL (TLS)
> I apologize for my ignorance, I actually thought that the info in my local
> /etc/services would be accurate, especially as AT&T called it the same thing.

Common confusion.

IANA is the 'de jure' standard, /etc/services is the 'de facto' standard.

Trying to claim that the actual real-world use of 465 is "illegal" is just
urinating into the wind, because there's a heck of a lot of the broken (yes,
it's non-standard compliant - using the STARTTLS verb on 587 is correct) SMTP
on 465 than there is 'urd' (whatever *that* is).

Attachment: pgpLpUpYHTh3x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]