-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Thursday, November 29, 2007 13:39:09 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:00:07PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> 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?
> Um, that you can't? One of the points of the new port was that it _only_
> allowed authenticated submission.
'k, sorry, you did say that in your last to me ... but, wouldn't *that* imply
that it is suddenly now okay to open up port 25? What I think is losing me
here is why add a new port, when port 25 itself *should* already be 'only
allowed authenticated'? Or, when you say "Only", do you mean even from the
local network, no exceptions?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-11-29 19:39:29|
|Subject: Re: Can we please refuse mail to the list from list addresses?|
|Previous:||From: Raymond O'Donnell||Date: 2007-11-29 19:23:09|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Republic of Ireland Press Contact|