wbh at conducive
Feb 3, 2007, 9:13 AM
Post #6 of 12
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 00:07:33 +0800, W B Hacker <wbh [at] conducive>
>> Port 465 was 'officially' reassigned by the IANA just about a year ago - to a
>> proprietary Cisco protocol that has nothing to do with smtp.
> But Microsoft mail clients are still officially using it and do not
> have any other possibility to to encrypted authentication.
Actually, I believe they do.
Even new-enough-to-know-better SeaMonkey, no 'clone' of Redmond, will 'default'
to 465 if SSL is selected.
Naturally, it also defaults to 587 if TLS is selected.
But even if Outlook/OE don't have the TLS choice, and/or 'SSL' *is* selected,
the 'newer' releases should also have the ability to manually override the port
Not that this is what is ordinarily wanted...
> Now, what's more official?
LOL! ..not gonna go there...
> IANA was extremely short-sighted by not keeping 465/tcp free for
> Microsoft's abuse.
No - this one cannot be laid at Redmond's doorstep. (Maybe THAT should be noted
as a rare exception..
*Most* MUA were equipped to be able to use 465 for a dozen and more years before
TLS was finalized. And most still are so enabled. Is there even one new one that
is not so capable?
I also do not recall any MS staff being involved in the *very* long-running
standards re-write, extensive discussion, and even outright conflict over the
port and protocol use. MS 'followers' maybe, but not 'official' support.
MS just, as usual, went along for the ride when they did not have control.
587, BTW - at least as far as final write-up, is basically a Eudora project, and
DOES try to avoid re-opening the 'war'.
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/