| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-11-17 14:47:45 | Re: [CORE] SPF Record ... |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2006-11-17 14:40:29 | Re: SPF Record ... |