* Jim Graham <spooky1...@gmail.com> [01-09-13 15:02]: > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:42:42PM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > * Jim Graham <spooky1...@gmail.com> [01-09-13 12:25]: > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:54:57AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > > * Alexander Gattin <xr...@yandex.ru> [01-09-13 11:23]: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:59AM -0500, Patrick > > > > > Shanahan wrote: > > > > > > > > that way 10 years ago. SMTP servers no longer accept users' mail at > > > > > port 25, but tend to do this at ports 465 and 587 instead. > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > Wrong? Was your statement, not mine. 465 is ssh and 587 for smtp > > No, I was saying "wrong" to the pwerson that said port 25 isn't used by > any system anymore, and who also made the mistake of thinking that port > 25 was a "unix thing" (or something to that effect). That person was NOT > me.
sorry, one of us left attributes incorrect, but ... > > submission. Port 25 is still used/usable if not blocked/hijacked by your > > isp, and then you can use a upper/higher port. > > Yep, and that is what *I* said, too. > > > But you are not limited to port 25 for outgoing mail. Assign a higher > > port, >1024. > > You mean a port like, say, port 587, which I have had configured for > years? Again, I think you've gotten me confused with the other guy. > Btw, port 587 is one of those that I said are used for authentication, > as opposed to port 25 which is UNauthenticated. no, > 1024, but was just thinking of those who have port 25 blocked by their isp. > Yep, you definitely mixed me up with the other (or another) poster. we're good :^) -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net
