On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:48:44 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote: > 08.07.2012 19:10, Camaleón: > >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 18:51:59 +0200, Markus Schönhaber wrote:
(...) >>> For some definition of "purpose", maybe [1] Stating that 587/tcp was >>> smtps is simply wrong, because it implies encryption on the network >>> layer. >> >> When you replace a standard with another it would be fair to say that >> both share the same essence and they are aimed to solve the same >> problem. > > That doesn't change the fact that one is encrypted on the network layer > while the other is not. Which one, exactly? > Especially - in contrast to what your statement implied - 587/tcp is not > encrypted on the network layer. Yes, it is. Or better put, it can be. >>> Which makes "the new standard" something very different. >> >> To my eyes, not that different in the end. > > Yeah. > Your statement that 587/tcp was smtps is simply wrong. I just corrected > your wrong statement - nothing more. Why you feel the need to go to a > great length to convince someone (whoever that might be) that your wrong > statement was somehow right is completely beyond me. If you are happy in thinking so I'm not going to try to change your mind. Sigh. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jtelt4$sc9$6...@dough.gmane.org
