Re: [exim] Forbid HELO

SeattleServer.com wrote:
> On Thursday 26 October 2006 01:57, W B Hacker wrote:
>> and, of course, the 'general case' - that of using, instead of port 25,
>> port 24 - which was set aside for that purpose [1] long ago - so as to
>> segregate such traffic from the 'rest of' the smtp arrivals.
>
> s/24/587/.
>

Umm ... yasss...

- Despite the original IANA intentions, for 'any private mail system' port 24
*has* been abused by 'Back Orifice' as a control port, and may reasonably be
found to be firewalled off...

Might still be of use *inside* the firewall, but otherwise, perhaps useless
nowadays.

Thanks,

Bill