«

Shane wrote:
> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:01:32 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> New settings are supposed to be.
>>>
>>> POP: pop3.xtra.co.nz, port 995
>>> SMTP: send.xtra.co.nz, port 465
>>>
>>> I've no idea about these port settings and how to check them.
>> Both are non-standard port settings.
>>
>> They will break many applications that expect default port settings.
>>
>>
> port 995 is the standard port for pop over ssl
> port 465 is the standard port for smtp over ssl
>
> $ grep 465 /etc/services
> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
> $ grep 995 /etc/services
> pop3s 995/tcp # POP-3 over SSL
> pop3s 995/udp
>

Its similar to setting up a mail client for gmail which is
pop.googlemail.com on 995 and smtp.googlemail.com on 587.
Nothing breaks, these are port numbers reserved for the purpose, just
enter the settings in your mail client.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...orts_0_to_1023

In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:18 +1200, Shane wrote:
>
>> FYI they are the same ports as those used previously by XTRA for mail
>
> Be that as it may. They are still not the regular POP and SMTP ports.

That's because they're not serving "regular" POP and SMTP.

Put it another way: think of the old ports as the "Dimdows" of POP and SMTP
ports, and the new ports as the "Linux" of e-mail. Does that make you feel
better?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <>, Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:18 +1200, Shane wrote:
>>
>>> FYI they are the same ports as those used previously by XTRA for mail
>> Be that as it may. They are still not the regular POP and SMTP ports.
>
> That's because they're not serving "regular" POP and SMTP.
>
> Put it another way: think of the old ports as the "Dimdows" of POP and SMTP
> ports, and the new ports as the "Linux" of e-mail. Does that make you feel
> better?
>
>
<retch>

Shane wrote:
> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:18 +1200, Shane wrote:
>>
>>> FYI they are the same ports as those used previously by XTRA for mail
>> Be that as it may. They are still not the regular POP and SMTP ports.
>>
>>
> OK numbnuts, what do you think POP3 over SSL and SMTP over SSL mean?
>
It's actually using TLS, not SSL.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

Enkidu wrote:
> Shane wrote:
>> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:18 +1200, Shane wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI they are the same ports as those used previously by XTRA for mail
>>> Be that as it may. They are still not the regular POP and SMTP ports.
>>>
>>>
>> OK numbnuts, what do you think POP3 over SSL and SMTP over SSL mean?
> >
> It's actually using TLS, not SSL.
>
Take that back.

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

Shane wrote:
> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:01:32 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> New settings are supposed to be.
>>>
>>> POP: pop3.xtra.co.nz, port 995
>>> SMTP: send.xtra.co.nz, port 465
>>>
>>> I've no idea about these port settings and how to check them.
>> Both are non-standard port settings.
>>
>> They will break many applications that expect default port settings.
>>
>>
> port 995 is the standard port for pop over ssl
> port 465 is the standard port for smtp over ssl
>
> $ grep 465 /etc/services
> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
> $ grep 995 /etc/services
> pop3s 995/tcp # POP-3 over SSL
> pop3s 995/udp
>
While you are correct and Lennier is wrong, the use of separate ports is
discouraged in the RFC:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2595.html

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

Enkidu wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:26:18 +1200, Shane wrote:
>>>
>>>> FYI they are the same ports as those used previously by XTRA for mail
>>> Be that as it may. They are still not the regular POP and SMTP ports.
>>>
>>>
>> OK numbnuts, what do you think POP3 over SSL and SMTP over SSL mean?
> >
> It's actually using TLS, not SSL.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
>

http://sial.org/howto/openssl/tls-name/
The encryption protocol SSL is now named TLS, resulting in two names for the
same protocol. Current software will negotiate TLS version 1 or SSL version
3 automatically. Humans, on the other hand, have to decide between using
the more recognizable SSL term versus the official TLS designation.

SSL is half right, but TLS is better.
--
Q: What is clear and used by trendy sophisticated engineers to solve other
differential equations?
A: The Perrier transform.

In message <46cd48ef$>, Enkidu wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:01:32 -0700, wrote:
>>>
>>>> New settings are supposed to be.
>>>>
>>>> POP: pop3.xtra.co.nz, port 995
>>>> SMTP: send.xtra.co.nz, port 465
>>>>
>>>> I've no idea about these port settings and how to check them.
>>> Both are non-standard port settings.
>>>
>>> They will break many applications that expect default port settings.
>>>
>>>
>> port 995 is the standard port for pop over ssl
>> port 465 is the standard port for smtp over ssl
>>
>> $ grep 465 /etc/services
>> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>> $ grep 995 /etc/services
>> pop3s 995/tcp # POP-3 over SSL
>> pop3s 995/udp
>>
> While you are correct and Lennier is wrong, the use of separate ports is
> discouraged in the RFC:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2595.html

Everybody should start using SRV records right now. Down with fixed port
numbers!

On 23 Aug, 09:50, Shane <sh...@weasel.is-a-geek.net> wrote:

> http://sial.org/howto/openssl/tls-name/
> The encryption protocol SSL is now named TLS, resulting in two names for the
> same protocol.

Not quite. TLS and SSL operate at different layers in the network
stack, so the method of negotiating the initial connection is
different. With SSL you connect to a server via SSL then start talking
whatever protocol (POP, SMTP in this case). For TLS, you connect to
the server on the standard non-SSL port (110 for POP, 587 for mail
submission) and issue the STARTTLS command to start negotiating
encryption. This means that servers can handle unencrypted sessions
and TLS encrypted sessions on the same port if desired, but it also
means the server application needs to be TLS aware. With SSL you are
forced into using SSL on that port, but you can use SSL wrappers to
encrypt a session to a server application that does not itself support
encryption.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <46cd48ef$>, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Shane wrote:
>>> Jonathan Walker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:01:32 -0700, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> New settings are supposed to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> POP: pop3.xtra.co.nz, port 995
>>>>> SMTP: send.xtra.co.nz, port 465
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no idea about these port settings and how to check them.
>>>> Both are non-standard port settings.
>>>>
>>>> They will break many applications that expect default port settings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> port 995 is the standard port for pop over ssl
>>> port 465 is the standard port for smtp over ssl
>>>
>>> $ grep 465 /etc/services
>>> ssmtp 465/tcp smtps # SMTP over SSL
>>> $ grep 995 /etc/services
>>> pop3s 995/tcp # POP-3 over SSL
>>> pop3s 995/udp
>>>
>> While you are correct and Lennier is wrong, the use of separate ports is
>> discouraged in the RFC:
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2595.html
>
> Everybody should start using SRV records right now. Down with fixed port
> numbers!
>
Why yes, and good on Microsoft for popularising them in Active Directory.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?