On Tuesday, 06 September 2005 at 15:41, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Brendan Cully <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I think this would just cause confusion, until port 587 is widely > > deployed by ISPs. I think most other MUAs still refer to SMTP servers > > in their configuration directives anyway. > > Only broken ones. submission/587 is the future for MUAs which insist on > speaking a network protocol to send mail -- ISPs also like it because it's > easier to impose limits on submitted mail that you wouldn't necessarily impose > on mail-in-transit. I'd like to agree, but I haven't seen evidence of any large ISPs turning on port 587 for their relay servers. Until they do, we'd be doomed to a deluge of "why won't mutt connect to my mail server? thunderbird works fine!" complaints. This patch is inherently populist and pragmatic. If it were some PGP/MIME option I'd be much happier to stick with the obscure RFC :)
Attachment:
pgpKd5DO9xRjz.pgp
Description: PGP signature