Re: [yam] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Wed, 20 January 2010 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BE63A67CC for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:49:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.558
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.819, BAYES_20=-0.74, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3gfBmYkBfe0 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5C73A67B6 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:49:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFFAFA053A; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:49:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (HELO by (Archiveopteryx 3.1.3) with esmtp id 1263977166-94161-94160/5/4 (6 recipients); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:46:06 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:54:48 +0100
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100108 Shredder/3.0.1pre
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <>, Michelle Cotton <>, Lars Eggert <>, Joe Touch <>
Subject: Re: [yam] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:49:26 -0000

On 01/19/2010 11:47 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> Sigh. We've attemped this sort of purity policing many times in the past. The
> results can be summarized quite simply:

IMO it works acceptably for new usage. It fails grandly when it tries to 
squeeze toothpaste back into the tube, but that's different.

Port 993 was a mistake IMO, but it's best to acknowledge our past 
mistakes, not sweep them under the carpet. Port 993 still exists, 
remains in use, and the name imaps refers to it. I don't like that, but 
I also don't think an IANA registry can list either 993 or imaps as 
being free for other use.

>> Please read draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-04 and comment on the
>> TSVWG list, if you want.  Releated discussion also happend on the
>> apps-discuss at ietf dot org mailing list.

My suggestion would be to add a section to that draft grandfathering 
ports 465, 993, 2000 and a few more (adding as much negative verbiage as 
seems wise; I don't think the exact amount makes any difference at all). 
IIRC port 2000 can be grandfathered a half-dozen times.

I didn't see a comment address in the draft, so I cc this message to the