Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [CORE] SPF Record ...

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [CORE] SPF Record ...
Date: 2006-11-17 14:42:34
Message-ID: 20061117144234.GB19593@phlogiston.dyndns.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 09:03:29AM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Didn't even know there *was* an RFC for that ... but, if there is, wouldn't it 
> be logical that most ISPs wuld block that *as well as* 25?  I've made the 
> change though ...

No.  The whole point of that port is that it offers a different,
authenticated service.  So it makes blocking port 25 "legitimate" (as
legitmate as such a solution ever is) because there's an
authenticated way to get there instead.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
		--attr. John Maynard Keynes

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2006-11-17 14:47:45
Subject: Re: [CORE] SPF Record ...
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2006-11-17 14:40:29
Subject: Re: SPF Record ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group