John C Klensin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 03:13:53 +0300 Alexey Melnikov
<mel(_at_)taxxi(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am sorry for not being precise. I mean *server implementations* (I am
not interested how to configure clients, I want to know if there is any
server (MTA-to-MTA) [de-facto] standard)
Short answer: No
There are also multiple reasons why this would be a bad idea.
They include reintroducing a reason for explicit source routes
Why?
and a great deal of confusion if the target domain actually
labels a set of MX records for hosts that don't all use the same
port.
You are right, this is confusing when we have multiple MX records. I missed
this point when asked the question.
If this is "first hop" (e.g., "message submission"), then
the comments others have made about configuring clients probably
apply.
Agreed.
If it is trying to reach a general far-end system on a
peculiar port, it probably can't be made to work in the general
case: the port data would really have to be in the DNS somehow,
and running standards/well-known services on variant ports is
usually considered offensive to both the architecture and even
elementary security considerations.
I am not insisting on using <username>@<server>:<port> syntax.
I would like to know how this idea was implemented (if it was) : server is
specially configured to connect particular server on non standard port (i.e.
the use of configuration files), server uses DNS Well-known service record or
Service Location Protocol, other ways.
--
Regards,
Alexey Melnikov
------------------------------------------
SMTP/POP3/IMAP4/ACAP servers creation team
Epsylon Technologies, Russia
http://www.taxxi.com
Imap Development Kit (my own product)
http://194.87.43.111/homerus/mail/idk/index.htm
Fax (in San Diego, California): 1 (619) 8393837
------------------------------------------