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