On 2010-07-30 7:54 AM, Bryan Vyhmeister dovecot@bsdjournal.net wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. I am not the one quoted below
Sorry, it appeared you were replying to Pascals request for postconf -n ouput and I didn't notice you weren't the OP.
While I could just as easily use 587 (and I have in some larger projects I have done), I left this at 465 and it really doesn't matter. My experience has been that every mail client I have used tried to connect on 465, 587, and 25 and it was never a problem. For that matter, I have also used port 1025 because many networks block access to 25 although this configuration always needs manual entering of the port since it is completely non-standard.
While you're correct in that 'technically' it doesn't matter (in most cases), it is still always best to use the ports designated by the RFCs for their intended purpose, and port 587 is it.
--
Best regards,
Charles