From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Can we please refuse mail to the list from list addresses? |
Date: | 2007-11-29 19:29:26 |
Message-ID: | A9071A6D9C6E9938BBA695A1@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Thursday, November 29, 2007 13:39:09 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:
> 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)
iD8DBQFHTxMW4QvfyHIvDvMRArDVAJwNJMvepPIw50CtwNXTR7IUOAPGkgCeMSMz
HeVH90KtgbllK7BxEGMpbX4=
=y8GF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-11-29 19:39:29 | Re: Can we please refuse mail to the list from list addresses? |
Previous Message | Raymond O'Donnell | 2007-11-29 19:23:09 | Re: [pgsql-www] Republic of Ireland Press Contact |