On 31-Mar-2009, at 12:13, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:03 AM -0600 LuKreme
<krem...@kreme.com> wrote:
Because the idea is to be able to simply retire the current SMTP
and that
will be a lot simpler if the new service is on a new port. It will
also
be much easier to justify.
You're reminding me how long it's taking to get IPv6 adopted.
It's very slow going, isn't it? The trouble is, for the vast majority
of users, there is simply no advantage to it until the vast majority
of the Internet fully supports it.
"Yes, Mr. CEO the figures are Mail inbound on port 25 is 98% spam,
mail
on port 26 is 3% spam. We still get 200 mails a week on port 25
that are
valid, but 18,000 on port 26."
"Well boys, I think it might be time to close down that gaping spam
hole
in our network and save a few $100K in bandwidth costs next year so
I can
get my $100,000,000 bonus check."
Exactly what I mean by "marketing", convincing a PHB who might buy a
port change but not a new stricter mode of SMTP enabled by capability.
Oh, THAT kind of marketing. In that case, yeah.
--
Exit, pursued by a bear.
