On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 15:28 -0400, Mark Schaub wrote: > It might be worth updating the wiki to mention the reasoning behind > using port 3268 and the implications it can cause.
Well, does the port 389 work then? It's mentioned there only because someone complained that 389 didn't work.. Perhaps because it required TLS? Or something, I don't know.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
