Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> W B Hacker wrote:
>> Another port, yes. But that still does not justify ignoring IETF/IANA
>> w/r *465*. Especially since they reserve port 24 for 'any private email
>
> What is easier to ignore, IETF/IANA, or a complaining user base who
> suddenly find their email (their internet) is broken?
It isn't *that* hard to take care of hteir needs.
If all else fails, I've talked folks through downloading and configuring
SeaMonkey, Mozilla Suite, Opera - all of which have mailers, not to
mention Thunderbird, and - IIRC about an even dozen other for-free MUA
for Windows.
> I assume 465 at
> some point was "offically" for encrypted smtp, then it changed.
No need to 'assume'.
The whole dozen-plus year who-struck-John is online. And - AFAIK, at the
end of the day it never did get final 'official' approval. 587 had
overtaken it.
That said, I think IANA were right wankers to not have just published a
warning of 'final' change, then let 465 go 'fallow' for - say another 2
to 5 years - and given Cisco something else that would cause *them* less
conflict as well.
Picture their situation 'I can't get may mail since I started using your
net TV!' Needless conflict.
A look at the port assignments reveal quite a number still reserved for
protocols that fell into disuse so long ago that even we greybeards have
a hard time remembering what used them.
Many should be re-assigned as the only thing using many of them nowadays
are WinCrobes. There are DB's online mapping the myriad of ports those
critters 'prefer' - none legally, of course.
> But I am
> sure anyone knows how hard it is to get rid of ingrown habits.
>
Easier if we at least make the effort to migrate folks to BCP (or a
reasonable facsimile thereof).
If mailadmins will not - who will? Ever? Micros**t, maybe?
> As a side note, I see port 0 recently got assigned, which feels a bit
> unfair, it should be reserved (for the sake of it :-)
>
> spr-itunes 0/tcp Shirt Pocket netTunes
> spl-itunes 0/tcp Shirt Pocket launchTunes
> David Nanian <dnanian&shirt-pocket.com> 28 September 2007
>
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
It gets dumber than that. The late Jon Postel is still listed as
point-of-contact for a number of protocols. He was a marvelously helpful
and influential person, and I wouldn't be opposed to a monument of some
sort - but this is not a good choice - I doubt even he can respond to
email these days.
Best,
Bill
