Re: Intent To Split: netbase
email@example.com (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 14.08.00 in <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> >>"John" == John Goerzen <email@example.com> writes:
> >> No real reason? Only one package can listen in on port 25, and
> John> There is no real reason that all must listen on port 25.
> Then you and I have very different opinions on what a working
> MTA is. Indeed, the SMTP RFC's differ with your opinion as well
AFAIK most MTAs can be convinced to use a different port. I wonder why
I know that Exim has support to talk to a SMTP server on an arbitrary
port. I see no reason to assume other MTAs can't do the same. I wonder why
I have a machine running two different Exim konfigurations at the same
time, one not involving listening on any port. Separate spools, separate
logs. I wonder why one of those couldn't be a different MTA?
As for NNTP, you've heard of port nntps? And then there's the option of
running server-to-server NNTP on arbitrary ports.
> John> These aren't real reasons at all.
> Given that, you have a curious definition of
> ``real''. Unfortunately, I do not think I find your definition of
> real very interesting.
His seems to be about the same as mine. Your "real reasons" boil down to
"I don't know why you'd want to do that", which is a piss-poor reason for
> One should optimize for the most common case. I think people
The rule should be: make easy things easy, and make hard things possible.
> who can maneuver around the port numbers can also recompile or use
> dpkg -x effectively.
There's a rather big difference between putting "demon_smtp_port=1234"
into a config and those other options.
> I am unsure that the results are quite worth the effort that
> needs be expended.
One rather common case with MTAs is switching from one to another with a
non-empty spool. Rather hard when they don't coexist peacefully. You don't
even need alternate ports for that - only the new MTA needs to actually
run a SMTP listener, the old one only needs a queue runner.