IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] What's the right thing to do about Port 465?

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 10 March 2014 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A861A043E for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1EfNm7WgCCr for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2FA1A0447 for <uta@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 878C1210E0; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:26:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:from :subject:date:to; s=smtpout; bh=FaWmQfK1cJAjfWwhdfQsVFZov1w=; b= AuEv30ms/A+Pc/6xMi1/qIfcD9mdfppNAF/QrQvKiJJgpg5rVkM9cYWHC46c/4us LcUv+vN4jvc4mKcPA4lNG82LFwrK3sO9vvV5XOO++xbnd7ifektHhr43oX6vS/B+ IYo20+vqYEuzCo3v7ip7E81DMPTSbVgvphDKHtQpU98=
X-Sasl-enc: vdCbcFHwK8dfCBr3VRthZsQqpHp8Tq7YC/enb/CMTbzm 1394461596
Received: from [21.82.250.9] (unknown [66.87.110.9]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 554EE6800DA; Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
References: <2A0EFB9C05D0164E98F19BB0AF3708C711FB9AAD89@USMBX1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <8691BA706C9BAB52D64A8444@96B2F16665FF96BAE59E9B90> <00cd01cf3b05$4e5fa500$eb1eef00$@huitema.net> <531D60FC.2090604@cisco.com> <531D6338.7050505@network-heretics.com> <CABuGu1rW0KY8U5iup3-6J7B1Cyp_v8K+0LSJ9wNdWFXiMO6xgw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABuGu1rW0KY8U5iup3-6J7B1Cyp_v8K+0LSJ9wNdWFXiMO6xgw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-486E1809-87BF-49E6-8E30-BC146155C53D"
Message-Id: <EF7B2636-7595-49A6-B8A8-DFC36F8DD78C@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B651)
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:26:32 -0400
To: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/D-uqI2EL_8KsJQZYYxrtvCXISII
Cc: "uta@ietf.org" <uta@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uta] What's the right thing to do about Port 465?
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:26:47 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, March 10, 2014, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/10/2014 02:51 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> Routers running URD intercept all packets using port 465, regardless of destination.
>> 
>> So is the right thing to do:
>> 
>> a)  Recommend port 465 anyway, but document the problem with these routers?
> 
> I think that the right thing would be to have Cisco move and keep 465 for smtps. It's much more likely that one vendor can/will change than that we can get a decentralized mail usage to change on both provider and consumer sides.

Somehow that doesn't seem very workable to me.  Anyone who knows that protocol who can comment in more detail?  I take it that it's not just a matter of upgrading all of the routers (which would be difficult enough) but also some host based software?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email