Re: Fwd: Balsa default mail submission on TCP port 587, not port 25[major@satx.rr.com]

[<balsa microwave com>]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Brian Stafford wrote:

> On 2001.07.09 18:35:20 +0100 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.
>
> Well, the application just passes the string to the libESMTP API which parses
> it as it sees fit.  As long as the application does not make assumptions
> about the syntax of this, it is easy to extend it in the future without breaking
> the application. I consider that it is enough to document the syntax somewhere.
>
> One possible future syntax extension might be to accept something like
> "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -bs"; its sort of hard to see how to explain the default
> port number on that one.  The situation is bad if the application nails
> on ":587" to the end of the string the user specifies.  Worse still if it
> refuses to pass the string to the libESMTP API or crashes because it can't
> parse the syntax.

Im not suggesting that the application tack it on unless it is the app
that is defaulting it, I am suggesting that if what is entered is not a
FULL canonical representation of the setting, that whatever canonizes it
(which I guess to be libESMTP from your message), should feed the
canonical setting back to be displayed in the UI. It should not be allowed
to remain in 'partial' format in the stored/displayed settings

I suppose libESMTP probably has no support to do that right now. Perhaps
the "correct" fix would be for that to be added.

>
> > > > 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)
>
> So what?  Are you saying that the open source community must wait for
> commercial software to adopt a standard before it does so for itself?
> The reality is that RFC 2476 is only about 18 months old.  However
> recent releases of MTAs are starting to adopt it (sendmail comes to mind,
> it hasn't waited for Netscape or MS to act first).

No, I am NOT saying not to adopt it. In fact, I am very much in agreement
with splitting mail relay from mail submission (eg, using port 587).

I AM saying then when you do adopt something as default that is
implemented almost nowhere, you should make it very obvious that you are
doing so. Hence giving SOME indication when making this configuration
entry that if a raw hostname is entered, port 587 will be used.

> > > Um... read Balsa's docs or the README file.  Both explain the default.
> >
> > 'immediate', eg on the config dialog. Not buried in documentation.
>
> Provide a patch to put the info in a tool tip or something if you
> feel that strongly about it.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Would you have a problem with the default being port 25 without explanation?
> I doubt you'd have thought to even raise the point, despite the fact that SMTP
> on port 25 was designed for mail relay and was never intended for mail
> submission (hence RFC 2476).

Yes, but that is what has been implemented for quite some time. It would,
regardless, STILL be technically incorrect to not make the default clear
ON THE CONFIG PANE, wether it was port 25, 587, or 12345. It just has more
opportunity to cause problems if the hidden default is not the "best
current practice"

> The problem here is people "just know" that SMTP happens to be on port 25
> therefore that is where their MUA should look for a server.  The plain fact
> is that such folk knowledge is wrong.  By implementing the correct standard
> people are forced to confront the issue and configure things properly or,
> at worst, to suit their local situation.  If they actually read the
> documentation first they might not even have to complain about this on
> the list.
>
> Brian Stafford
>