On Tue, 05 Mar 2019 09:45:47 -0500 Bill Cole via Exim-users wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2019, at 9:10, Ryan McClung via Exim-users wrote:
>
> > Why use only 465 and not 587? Just curious there.
>
> Or why not every port between 400 and 10000? :)
>
> The way daemons on ports 465 and 587 can be expected to behave are
> defined in IETF RFCs 6409 and 8314. If you want your mail system to be
> interoperable with the broadest possible range of legitimate mail
> software, it is a good start to follow the RFCs.
>
> There's a very arcane and confusing history behind the use of port 465
> which makes it wise, at least for a few more years, to continue to
> support port 587 with STARTTLS.
>
Given that people have tried for decades to rid the world of port 465
based on the RFCs and port assignments (and as RFC 8314 states, submission
over 587 is no less insecure than outright TLS) and inertia in general,
I'd make that a:
"Continue to support 587 indefinitely".
Regards,
Christian
> --
> Bill Cole
> bill@??? or billcole@???
> (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
> Available For Hire: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
>
> --
> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
>
--
Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer
chibi@??? Rakuten Communications
