On 20140731_2251+0100, Brian wrote: > On Thu 31 Jul 2014 at 15:34:46 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > On 7/31/2014 3:09 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > > > The point of my remark was that malware can operate on port 25 so there > > > is nothing to prevent it operating on port 587. I was actually agreeing > > > with you when you said "Nothing". > > > > Yes, but Port 587 requires (or at least should require) a login; Port 25 > > never does for email destined for the domains being served by that MTA. > > I feel this is a repetition of a technical point we both agree on. > > > > I think that once you get to discussing the capabilities of the malware > > > it acknowledges that port 587 presents no more problems to the malware > > > than port 25; it simply depends on how good the malware is. Which, as I > > > originally queried, brings into question the efficacy of ISPs mandating > > > its use. > > > > > > I'll not ask for ISP facts and figures to show how good port 587 is for > > > them. > > > > Yes, it does - again, Port 587 requires a login - which adds a huge > > layer of complexity to the malware. > > I'm glad we can end this by both of us agreeing that "it simply depends > on how good the malware is."
Good malware? What a concept;-) -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140801225909.ga7...@big.lan.gnu
