Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #20511 > unrolled thread

Local Mail

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-19 11:35 -0500
    Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-19 11:40 -0500
    Re: Local Mail Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-19 11:50 -0800
      Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-19 15:19 -0500
        Re: Local Mail Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-19 15:16 -0800
          Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-20 18:35 -0500
            Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-21 10:42 -0500
              Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-21 11:07 -0500
                Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-21 12:02 -0500
              Re: Local Mail Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-01-22 02:25 -0800
                Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-22 10:24 -0500
                  Re: Local Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 16:22 +0000
                    Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-22 12:22 -0500
                      Re: Local Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 18:33 +0000
                        Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-22 14:40 -0500
                          Re: Local Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-22 22:16 +0000
                Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-24 18:18 +0000
            Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-21 10:46 -0500
              Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-21 11:56 -0500
                Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-21 17:47 -0500
                  Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-24 18:12 +0000
                    Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-24 14:16 -0500
                    Re: Local Mail Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-25 09:57 +0000
                      Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-27 16:48 +0000
                        Re: Local Mail Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-01-27 12:50 -0500
                          Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-27 19:31 +0000
                        Re: Local Mail Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-27 18:29 +0000
                          Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-27 19:27 +0000
                            Re: Local Mail Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-28 00:27 +0000
                              Re: Local Mail billy@MIX.COM - 2014-01-28 05:58 +0000
                                Re: Local Mail Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-28 16:46 +0000
        Re: Local Mail Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-19 23:58 +0000
          Re: Local Mail Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> - 2014-01-20 19:07 -0500
      Re: Local Mail Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-19 21:26 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#20667

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> You should be able to configure your mailer to relay everything through 
> the ISP's SMTP server. You may need to set it to port 587 and configure 
> authentication.

Port 465 (using TLS/SSL) is almost always a better choice.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20670

In article <lbuaef$9r0$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
> > You should be able to configure your mailer to relay everything through 
> > the ISP's SMTP server. You may need to set it to port 587 and configure 
> > authentication.
> 
> Port 465 (using TLS/SSL) is almost always a better choice.

You can, and should, use TLS/SSL on port 587 as well, so there's no 
significant difference. 587 is the officially designated port, 465 is a 
Microsoft addition that has become a de facto standard.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20677

In message <lbuaef$9r0$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

>> You should be able to configure your mailer to relay everything through 
>> the ISP's SMTP server. You may need to set it to port 587 and configure 
>> authentication.

> 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.


-- 
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forego their use."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20757

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20761

In article <lc62kh$96d$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:

> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> 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

Warner Bros, the movie studio? Or do you mean Time Warner Cable?

> 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.

Port 25 is usually the port that's blocked on firewalls, there's no 
reason to block 587.

Obviously, you should use whatever port your SMTP server supports. 
Mail.app has a checkbox for all the ports -- the application tries them 
until one of them works.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20766

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> Warner Bros, the movie studio? Or do you mean Time Warner Cable?

The movie studio.  I've even had a senior VP take a whack at it,
and gotten nowhere.

> Port 25 is usually the port that's blocked on firewalls, there's no 
> reason to block 587.

Some people only open certain ports, as opposed to only blocking them.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20764

In message <lc62kh$96d$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> 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.

MTAs certainly support submission.

> This includes my postmaster, who says it has caused as
> much a problem as it solves.

Then he's an idiot.

> He says 465 should be used if possible,

Yep, a blithering blinkered msftie dumbass.  465 should *never* be used.

> then STARTTLS on 25

No mail submission should be allowed on port 25. STARTTLS on port 587.

> or 2525.

OMG. No.

> 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.

Anyone who blocks port 587 should be beaten with aluminium bats and left
on the side of the road.

-- 
Technically, Aziraphale was a Principality, but people made jokes about
that these days

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20765

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> > This includes my postmaster, who says it has caused as
> > much a problem as it solves.
> 
> Then he's an idiot.

Well, between the two of you, my opinion is he's far more competent.

If you'd care to publish your CV, I'll post a link to his.

> Anyone who blocks port 587 should be beaten with aluminium bats and left
> on the side of the road.

That may be true, but it has not stopped them.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20771

In message <lc6bvs$80h$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

>> > This includes my postmaster, who says it has caused as
>> > much a problem as it solves.
>> 
>> Then he's an idiot.

> Well, between the two of you, my opinion is he's far more competent.

All evidence to the contrary.

> If you'd care to publish your CV, I'll post a link to his.

Ooo, epeen contest? I've been adminning mail servers continuously since
1993. Real mail servers, not MSFT shitware. But CVs are irelavant, he's
wrong and I'm right, and that's just a fact.

>> Anyone who blocks port 587 should be beaten with aluminium bats and left
>> on the side of the road.

> That may be true, but it has not stopped them.

What corporate a-holes do is, happily, of very little import to the vast
majority of the Internet.

In fact, port 465 is defined as a SSM port, not a port having anything
to do with mail.

/etc/services
igmpv3lite      465/udp     # IGMP over UDP for SSM 
urd             465/tcp     # URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM

Use of port 465 was deprecated well over a decade ago in favor of
STARTTLS on the submission port (read RFC 3207 for details on this).

-- 
I WILL NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BART Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F09

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20780

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

> I've been adminning mail servers continuously since 1993.

An odd statement from one posting news articles with a gmail
address.

> In fact, port 465 is defined as a SSM port, not a port having
> anything to do with mail.
>
> /etc/services
> igmpv3lite      465/udp     # IGMP over UDP for SSM 
> urd             465/tcp     # URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM

$ uname -v
NetBSD 6.1 (PANIX-XEN-USER) #1: Fri Aug  2 19:22:23 EDT 2013
$ grep 465 /etc/services
smtps     465/tcp        # smtp protocol over TLS/SSL (was ssmtp)

> Use of port 465 was deprecated well over a decade ago in favor of
> STARTTLS on the submission port (read RFC 3207 for details on this).

I'm talking about what works, not what should work.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20788

In message <lc7gtk$t7f$1@reader2.panix.com> 
  billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:

>> I've been adminning mail servers continuously since 1993.

> An odd statement from one posting news articles with a gmail
> address.

Why not? Gmail's spam filtering is quite good and I certainly don't want
to post the address I actually use to usenet.

>> In fact, port 465 is defined as a SSM port, not a port having
>> anything to do with mail.
>>
>> /etc/services
>> igmpv3lite      465/udp     # IGMP over UDP for SSM 
>> urd             465/tcp     # URL Rendesvous Directory for SSM

> $ uname -v
> NetBSD 6.1 (PANIX-XEN-USER) #1: Fri Aug  2 19:22:23 EDT 2013
> $ grep 465 /etc/services
> smtps     465/tcp        # smtp protocol over TLS/SSL (was ssmtp)

Fine, her is the OFFICIAL port assignments. Scroll down to find port
465.

<http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?&page=9>

(In fact, this link is almost certainly in the comment header of your
/etc/services)

>> Use of port 465 was deprecated well over a decade ago in favor of
>> STARTTLS on the submission port (read RFC 3207 for details on this).

> I'm talking about what works, not what should work.

587 with STARTTLS works.

-- 
The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20535

On 2014-01-19, Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/14 2:50 PM, Michael Vilain wrote:
>> In article <lbguso$k3s$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> If you're going to run a server on your system, you'll have to maintain
>> it in between software upgrades. That's a fact of life.  Now man up and
>> admin your servers.
>>
>
> That's sort of the the problem.  I'm not running a server.

Of course you are. You're running a mail server on your computer. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20574

On 1/19/14 6:58 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2014-01-19, Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>> On 1/19/14 2:50 PM, Michael Vilain wrote:
>>> In article <lbguso$k3s$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>>> If you're going to run a server on your system, you'll have to maintain
>>> it in between software upgrades. That's a fact of life.  Now man up and
>>> admin your servers.
>>>
>>
>> That's sort of the the problem.  I'm not running a server.
>
> Of course you are. You're running a mail server on your computer.
>

Mr. Vilain corrected me on that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20529

In message <vilain-5053C2.11504419012014@news.individual.net> 
  Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <lbguso$k3s$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
>  Robert Peirce <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:

>> Every time I upgrade the OS I have to recreate and reinstall local mail, 
>> which is a pain.  Among other things I have to reinstall qpopper, edit 
>> postfix and reload org.postfix.master.plist in LaunchDaemons.  I think 
>> the aliases file has to be checked and reinstalled as well.  There may 
>> be some other things but I am working from memory.
>> 
>> I use local mail pretty much only for daily, weekly and monthly system 
>> mail, a script that checks to see if any man pages need to be updated 
>> and output from the calendar program.
>> 
>> My calendar stuff could be moved to Things and I could probably do 
>> something with my man page checker once I remember what runs it.  The 
>> problem is the system mail.
>> 
>> How do other people get that without running local mail on their computers?

> Your use-case is outside the marketing profile of the typical user who 
> buys and runs a MacOS system.  Most don't bother setting up local mail. 
> Indeed, most ISPs when finding a mail server on their customer networks 
> will either block port 25 if they haven't already, or cancel their 
> account.  The T&C's of Service for consumer accounts specifically 
> prohibit running a server.

> Is it such a big deal to keep the setup information on your mail server 
> in an Disaster Recovery document along with your configurations for 
> Apache, MySQL, php, perl, and any command-line software installed in 
> /usr/local/bin?  When I went from 10.6.8 to 10.8, I was shocked at how 
> much the Migration assistant kept around.  My perl, php, and /usr/local 
> stuff was fine. I had to setup mail, Apache and MySQL, but that was it.

> This all seems pretty obvious to me, as a sysadmin.  Upgrades and what 
> they screw up are part and parcel of living with computer systems.  
> Maintaining documentation on your system so you can recover and recreate 
> it seems like a no brainer.

I still remember, with a certain amount of pain, how much php3 fucked
everything up, and php4 was worse.

-- 
Varium et mutabile semper Femina.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web