has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

Discussion:

Lloyd McNeil

2011-03-21 21:46:37 UTC

Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with ssl
use port 587.

Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

Thanks

Lloyd

Chris Stone

2011-03-21 22:06:24 UTC

Permalink

Post by Lloyd McNeil
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with ssl
use port 587.
Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

While port 587 is typically used for authenticated and unencrypted
SMTP connections, there's nothing that would stop you from doing that.
Just set it up that way in your run file and you're set...

Chris

Torsten Kersandt

2011-03-21 22:07:09 UTC

Permalink

HI Lloyd

Not a problem to do and should not cause any troubles other then headache
telling people and remember to change the advanced settings to that port
for SSL SMTP

Torsten

From: Lloyd McNeil [mailto:lmcneil-5fEA2WC4m+***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 21 March 2011 21:47
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with ssl
use port 587.

Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

Thanks

Lloyd

Daniel Llewellyn

2011-03-21 22:19:28 UTC

Permalink

The response below is deliberately obtuse because of the question asked.
If you are offended by it then read and understand the page at
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Subject: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

in response to the subject line:

no, nobody has tried to replace port 465 with port 587, because that
would require weird iptables (linux) or pf (freebsd) firewall
redirection rules to move all traffic inbound on 465 to 587 and all
inbound traffic on 587 to 465 - it's just weird and unneeded.

if I rephrase your question because it's meaning is not what you wanted
to ask, afaict, when read explicitly:

yes, people have "tried to [run qmail-smtp over port 587]".

As a secondary note, the rephrased question is still not asking a
question that will get you the answer you want - see my response
sentence for an example of a valid answer to the question you asked.

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

is that a question, statement or other?

If you want to know how to change the port that a particular qmail-smtp
responds to, then you need to amend the `run` script that launches said
instance. Lots of detail about the various settings available in the run
script are available at [1], in particular the page at [2].

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

I know nothing of the "3.0 qmailrocks installation", however I do know
about qmail with the JMS1 patchset (I forget which version was the last
that I used; I'm currently not running qmail, but will be as soon as I
work out how to integrate virtualmin gpl - and it's dkim setup - with
qmail+vpopmail+dkim).

[1] http://qmail.jms1.net/
[2] http://qmail.jms1.net/tls-auth.shtml

Torsten Kersandt

2011-03-21 23:06:05 UTC

Permalink

That article has been written by someone who likes to hurt himself
intentionally and doesn't know when to stop ( sorry Eric !!!!!!!).
Just open the port without redirect, configure tcpserver to listen to it.
That's about all what's to it

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Llewellyn [mailto:diddledan-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 21 March 2011 22:19
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Cc: Lloyd McNeil
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The response below is deliberately obtuse because of the question asked.
If you are offended by it then read and understand the page at
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Subject: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

Torsten Kersandt

2011-03-21 23:24:26 UTC

Permalink

HI Guys
In addition to the subject of asking a question:
There are no stupid questions - just stupid answers.

BUT

A question can be annoying because either they include the answer or have
been answered many of times before as in RTFM or have been considered in
publications, meaning the person asking did not even try to look for a
solution.

Regards
Torsten

-----Original Message-----
From: Torsten Kersandt [mailto:torsten-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 21 March 2011 23:06
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: RE: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

That article has been written by someone who likes to hurt himself
intentionally and doesn't know when to stop ( sorry Eric !!!!!!!).
Just open the port without redirect, configure tcpserver to listen to it.
That's about all what's to it

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Llewellyn [mailto:diddledan-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 21 March 2011 22:19
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Cc: Lloyd McNeil
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The response below is deliberately obtuse because of the question asked.
If you are offended by it then read and understand the page at
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Subject: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Freebsd using the 3.0 qmailrocks installation.

Daniel Llewellyn

2011-03-21 23:42:50 UTC

Permalink

Post by Torsten Kersandt
HI Guys
There are no stupid questions - just stupid answers.
BUT
A question can be annoying because either they include the answer or have
been answered many of times before as in RTFM or have been considered in
publications, meaning the person asking did not even try to look for a
solution.

I'd like to point out that I _did_ answer the question meaningfully as
quoted below. I also took the time to try to educate that a good
question will always yield better and more meaningful answers. In this
case the answer should have been accessible via the archives, but the
archive website is currently broken.

A good answer should never spoon-feed the answer through copy-paste
commands, but try to _educate_ the questioner. That is why I
deliberately linked to John Simpson's site, even going as far as finding
the appropriate page, which would have explained everything much better
than I could.

Also, if you think I'm obtuse, try asking the original question as
is/was of John Simpson or the others on his qmail-patch mailing list (as
John is v. busy at the mo) - Be prepared to be instantly removed from
said list.

Post by Torsten Kersandt
-----Original Message-----

Post by Lloyd McNeil
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

If you want to know how to change the port that a particular qmail-smtp
responds to, then you need to amend the `run` script that launches said
instance. Lots of detail about the various settings available in the run
script are available at [1], in particular the page at [2].
[1] http://qmail.jms1.net/
[2] http://qmail.jms1.net/tls-auth.shtml

Daniel Llewellyn

2011-03-21 23:58:28 UTC

Permalink

Post by Torsten Kersandt
Sorry Daniel
Did not try to patronise or criticise.
Just a general thing as you have complicated the issue beyond a reasonable
answer, accelerating it to a much larger issue.

I'm sending this back to the list as I'm apologising below:
- --
Don't worry, I guess we all have little niggles that rile us, and I got
a bit riled by that one. It's part of being a global community that we
try to get along, and I believe I failed on that count :-/

Therefore I feel I should apologise. I'm sorry, I meant my reply with
the best of intentions but through my own fault I messed it up :-p

Please note for the future: while I get riled by some things, I never
take offence (within reason) and pretty much always have my tongue
firmly in my cheek by way of humour.

Take Care :-)

Torsten Kersandt

2011-03-22 00:02:50 UTC

Permalink

Hey, smile - that's what happened when you try to help.
No need to apologise, any help is appreciated by anyone out there trying to
use qmail

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Llewellyn [mailto:diddledan-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: 21 March 2011 23:58
To: Torsten Kersandt; QMail Rocks
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lloyd McNeil

2011-03-22 00:11:36 UTC

Permalink

I didn't take the advise any way but informative I revisited John Simpsons
site and I had made the appropriate changes, I'm thinking now it might be a
cram 5 issue because I didn't install that it.

From: Daniel Llewellyn [mailto:diddledan-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:43 PM
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Cc: Torsten Kersandt
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Torsten Kersandt
-----Original Message-----

Post by Lloyd McNeil
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNh+J5AAoJEOliLTp7UeI2V2QH/03pLvwMFNT8IFVkNOV/bZp4
NyNGtshtHqgj2Tj9a8XEQo9uubMdpg209+k0jDWPH4LIHeozViry4tPnCdBLHJy6
zPR/0mNGqvBmixh/uuGDqmi5xL0Z/sFW7d0tkb7ucJRG1caiIUiz5M8QwQJmZbMW
Pb+3y9F2A29AQEoNab2T3KiXS3MU/9wN3x7JluS6kW+tESG1pVUu3HdWH8mQGOhN
719aQNQbhmZi13MPBRnVDBvXyDbIRlKl2wQQjHrd8z6bzedIeVE9RjuqiAWHxJvr
mOZzlAWFxoOB1RPZTXJLaeuEF8X2BIKutsJOWvSlnpetK3hNtNHyj6dDCjdJ0gU=
=l7Ny
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3521 - Release Date: 03/21/11

Lloyd McNeil

2011-03-22 00:33:19 UTC

Permalink

Now I think im on to the real problem the qmailrocks 3.0 instruction don't
use tls at all so I think im going to have reinstall qmail with qmail-tls
unless there is another way to install tls.

From: Lloyd McNeil [mailto:lmcneil-5fEA2WC4m+***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 7:12 PM
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: RE: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

I didn't take the advise any way but informative I revisited John Simpsons
site and I had made the appropriate changes, I'm thinking now it might be a
cram 5 issue because I didn't install that it.

From: Daniel Llewellyn [mailto:diddledan-***@public.gmane.org]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:43 PM
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Cc: Torsten Kersandt
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Torsten Kersandt
-----Original Message-----

Post by Lloyd McNeil
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.

Torsten Kersandt

2011-03-21 23:55:18 UTC

Permalink

Sorry Daniel
Did not try to patronise or criticise.
Just a general thing as you have complicated the issue beyond a reasonable
answer, accelerating it to a much larger issue.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 21 March 2011 23:43
To: qmr-iGp6mRlwfsr/sFSC9fAAV0B+***@public.gmane.org
Cc: Torsten Kersandt
Subject: Re: [qmr] has anyone tried to replace port 465 ssl with port 587

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Torsten Kersandt
-----Original Message-----

Post by Lloyd McNeil
Id like to keep the separation on port 25, but instead of using 465 with
ssl use port 587.