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

Arnt Gulbrandsen <> Wed, 20 January 2010 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F36A3A680C for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:28:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.413
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PU6P5gW0wh4B for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:4d88:100c::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607943A67D9 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42628FA0564; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:28:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (HELO by (Archiveopteryx 3.1.3) with esmtp id 1263979522-94161-94160/5/6 (6 recipients); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:25:22 +0100
Message-Id: <m/>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:28:43 +0100
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <>, Michelle Cotton <>,, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
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 09:28:41 -0000

Lars Eggert writes:
> I'm not on the yam list and this is the first message in this thread 
> that I was CC'ed on. It seems like you are suggesting changes to 
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports, but due to the lack of context I'm at a 
> loss as to what they are...

Tthe thead in a nutshell: The iana-ports document says "one port for 
each purpose" etc. IMAP, POP3 and perhaps SMTP, however, exist in two. 
993 ("imaps") and 143 ("imap") for IMAP. Everyone on the list dislikes 
port 993. The question is whether port 993 should survive in the IANA 

My suggestion for the iana-ports document is to permit more than one 
port in those cases where that's currently deployed, and apply the 
one-port-per-purpose rule only to new allocations.

My rationale for that is that the extra ports/service names aren't 
really free. You can't use port 993 or service name imaps for anything 
else, and IMO that's reason enough to keep it in the registry.

The same argument applies to pop3s/995, and perhaps to smtps/465 (smtps 
is falling out of use).