-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, November 29, 2007 07:59:56 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>>> - --On Thursday, November 29, 2007 13:53:06 +0100 Magnus Hagander
>>> <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That one may be, but it's not like it's a *new* concept that you shouldn't
>>>> have end-users connecting and sending email on port 25...
>>> Is anyone arguing that? I always connect / send on port 25 ...
>>
>> The IETF is. What they are saying is that you are helping the spammers
>> by not using 587.
>>
>
> O.k. what I don't understand is, "how" are we helping spammers? It isn't like
> we allow relaying without auth.
And is there a reason to assume spammers are that stupid as to not switch to
using 587 if that does become some sort of standard?
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHTvAX4QvfyHIvDvMRAmhtAJ97bBsqCO6MlZgsh0qFg8pqlDA75QCfeXKA
oeVm3oeg1PSnPrcAO+c0vkc=
=NwIm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----