> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
Uwe Brauer writes:
> BTW even this version only supports starttls, but no ssl?
STARTTLS *is* SSL. See RFC 2487. If Gmail has a different way of
supporting SMTP over SSL, I don't know about it. I suppose you could
have a dedicated port where TLS authentication/privacy negotiation is
done *before* connecting to the mail server, but a quick look doesn't
show any documentation for it.
I take your word. I am just wondering why thunderbird/seamonkey
associate port 587 with starttls and 465 with ssl, and why GNU emacs
smtpmail has the following
(defcustom smtpmail-stream-type nil
"Type of SMTP connections to use.
This may be either nil (possibly upgraded to STARTTLS if possible),
or `starttls' (refuse to send if STARTTLS isn't available), or `plain'
\(never use STARTTLS), or `ssl' (to use TLS/SSL)."
:type '(choice (const :tag "Possibly upgrade to STARTTLS" nil)
(const :tag "Always use STARTTLS" starttls)
(const :tag "Never use STARTTLS" plain)
(const :tag "Use TLS/SSL" ssl)))
> I am asking, because gmail offers 2 ports for smtp:
> - 587 with starttls
> - 464 with ssl
Are you sure that's not port 465? The standard port for smtps
465. This page:
oops my bad
says it's port 465. He also says he's never gotten it to
have most of the people he knows who have tried. (Scott is a friend
of mine, and quite reliable.)
Hm, but as a matter of fact, when I was in this place, I mentioned, I
could use thunderbird/seamonkey, after setting the port to 465 (it did
not work with port 587), this was July this year, I don't know when
Scott tried out.
Port 587 is a different protocol (the mail submission protocol, RFC
2476), which happens to use SMTP for its wire protocol. (Perhaps
that's confusing -- all the new restrictions are on what the receiving
MSA is allowed to do, so it doesn't actually need a new wire
protocol.) That RFC doesn't actually permit use of STARTTLS, but I
guess that's because it was published before 2487 was.
> The problem is I have been in places where 587 was blocked and
> smptmail did not work!
My commiserations. Seems like a very stupid thing to do to me, but
don't know what their situation is.
Thanks I agree.
I suspect that they just block *everything* under 1024 (or maybe
everything period) except for a few ports known to have strong
authentication (like 22, ssh) or considered organizationally essential
(like 80 and/or 442, http and https). I doubt they really care about
the difference between 587 and 465 (or 464).
Something like this. Even skype did not work under linux but it worked
under windows. Had to do that under windows skype is much more recent
and allowed to set a proxy in a certain way the linux version did not.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list