Re: Fwd: Balsa default mail submission on TCP port 587, not port 25[major satx rr com]
- From: <balsa microwave com>
- To: Brian Stafford <brian stafford uklinux net>
- Cc: <balsa-list gnome org>, major <major satx rr com>
- Subject: Re: Fwd: Balsa default mail submission on TCP port 587, not port 25[major@satx.rr.com]
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Brian Stafford wrote:
> On Mon, 9 July 17:10 balsa@microwave.com wrote:
> >
> > Ok, perhaps not a 'port' field, but some indication of what a defaut value
> > is. Perhaps if someone enters just "smtp.foobar.com", it should
> > automatically add (not just internally, but in the displayed setting as
> > well), the :587 (or whatever the official designator is)..
>
> I disagree. libESMTP, and hence Balsa, does the correct thing with a bare
> domain name.
It may very well 'do' the correct thing, but it doesnt take much care to
*show* what it is doing.
> > I can think of no other MUA that both defaults to what is (irt current
> > deployment) a non-standard port,
>
> Er, sorry but RFC 2476 states that 587 is the standard port for mail
> *submission*. Port 25 is the standard port for mail *relay*. Like it or
> not these are different protocols, hence the different port numbers.
> RFC 2476 is s standards track RFC so you are wrong about the non standard bit.
Ok, it may be the current _specified_ standard, but it is deployed almost
nowhere. (Probably since very few current 'popular' (eg Micro$oft) MUAs
have any idea what it is yet)
> Non standard behaviour of other MUAs is not the issue here. They will
> eventually move to adopt the new standard. One of the authors of RFC 2476
> works for Qualcomm, so we can expect their products to be compliant.
>
> > and ALSO gives no immediate indication
> > that it has done so..
>
> Um... read Balsa's docs or the README file. Both explain the default.
'immediate', eg on the config dialog. Not buried in documentation.
> When it comes to adopting new protocols or standards, someone has to take
> the lead. The argument that other programs don't do it yet hardly stands
> up, especially considering that there are no issues with interoperability.
I dont have a problem with balsa defaulting to 587, just that it doesnt
make it very apparent that it is doing so.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]