Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Local Mail Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1390841297 9421 166.84.1.5 (27 Jan 2014 16:48:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 16:48:17 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:20757 Lewis writes, quoting me: > > Port 465 (using TLS/SSL) is almost always a better choice. > > No. Port 465 is a legacy port for LookOut and LookOut express. Most mail > servers do not even support it. > > 587 is submission, and is the only port that should be used for sending > mail. My experience has been that on a practical level (I work in many places, and run into a pretty good variety of people trying to send email) port 465 works more often than 587. Some of this is due to 587 being filtered in firewalls (Warner Bros is or maybe was a good example of that), and some of it is from 587 not being supported at the MTA. This includes my postmaster, who says it has caused as much a problem as it solves. He says 465 should be used if possible, then STARTTLS on 25 or 2525. He travels a lot, and has found half the time no one cares, 24% of the time 25 is blocked and 2525 is ok, and 24% of the time 2525 is blocked and 2525 is allowed. For the remaining 2%, a VPN client is necessary. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number