On 18/12/2019 12:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Nope. Its very unilikely that noise levels will give you a 0-4Mpbs range
on a daily basis on a clean cable.

Its far more likely there were bad joints and crackles on it.

I agree. I get 0 - 0.8Mbps on a 9km cable, and that has occasional
faults which generally bring the availability down to 0 - 10%.

If you are that far down in speed it is worth talking to your ISP or
doing some research into what alternatives might work for you. Options
in North Yorkshire include peer to peer microwave links at 20M and
upwards (largish initial install cost but monthly about the same) or
3/4G and an external antenna on a Mifi all you can eat data deal.

There should be a superfast broadband your county initiative if you
live somewhere with rural 10km cable runs of decrepit wet string.

BT were persuaded to give a neighbour an EE 3G modem because they
couldn't provide him with sensible internet speed or reliability.
Unwelcome side effect was he lost his BT email address when he switched.

Almost every farm and anyone with line of sight onto a node is on the
microwave deal around here. It was Clannet now taken over by Quickline.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/12/2019 11:37, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/12/2019 10:30, John Rumm wrote:
On 17/12/2019 20:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:

[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor day
gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to FTTP was
essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

Had similar here - the unresolved cable "fault" was that there was 6km
of the stuff!

Probably with plenty of bad joints often flooded with brackish water if
our local configuration is anything to go by. They sometimes upgrade
exceptionally bad lengths of cable but there is neither rhyme nor reason
to what gets done. They only do the bare minimum they can get away with.

Our ADSL2+ service manages about 2Mb down 0.6 up with a loop attenuation
of 62dB. To be fair its relatively stable, and only completely fails
once or twice a year. Its got slower with age - there was a time it
could do about 3 to 3.5Mb about 10 years ago. Most of it is overhead, so
it can get affected after very heavy rain, but does not suffer as much
as some.

It took a couple of years of waiting for FTTP to move from FTTPoD to
actually installed and useable - but now its here its a whole different
world :-)

Rural telecoms like the rural mail service is simply not profitable.

Indeed, and also technically more difficult to service even if the
coercion / subsidy etc is there to pay for it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 18/12/2019 11:36, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 18/12/2019 10:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 09:53, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

On 17/12/2019 17:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Martin Brown
wrote:

On 17/12/2019 12:46, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/12/2019 12:10, Broadback wrote:
On 17/12/2019 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own domain
so that when I move internet supplier I can keep the same
email addresses. This has worked fine in the past but now BT
will not let me communicate with Hotmail addresses. Why, and
is there a way around this problem?

Why are you using BT at all?
Use PlusNets smtp relay for outgoing.
= smtp.plus.net

Because I wish to. I never used Plusnet other than for
internet. I use, and have for years, Thunderbird, it is only BT
as an internet provider

My bad, you switched to BT FROM plus net.

Ah. And are you using BT's relay?

And why is the use of Thunderbird or any other particular email
client
relevant?

Thunderbird does have the odd bug if the mail server is tardy in
responding or there is a mismatch in security certificates.

What are security certificates?

The certificate that assures you that you are talking securely to
your selected mailserver and not to some man-in-the-middle attacker.

Is there an RFC for these?

Dunno, but it's essentially like the relationship between HTTP and
HTTPS: it's just SMTP wrapped inside a secure transport. It's becoming
increasingly commonplace now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMTPS


Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers to only
accept either SSL or STARTLS connections now.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Martin Brown wrote:

On 18/12/2019 12:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Nope. Its very unilikely that noise levels will give you a 0-4Mpbs range
on a daily basis on a clean cable.

Its far more likely there were bad joints and crackles on it.

I agree. I get 0 - 0.8Mbps on a 9km cable, and that has occasional
faults which generally bring the availability down to 0 - 10%.

If you are that far down in speed it is worth talking to your ISP or
doing some research into what alternatives might work for you. Options
in North Yorkshire include peer to peer microwave links at 20M and
upwards (largish initial install cost but monthly about the same) or
3/4G and an external antenna on a Mifi all you can eat data deal.

There should be a superfast broadband your county initiative if you
live somewhere with rural 10km cable runs of decrepit wet string.

BT were persuaded to give a neighbour an EE 3G modem because they
couldn't provide him with sensible internet speed or reliability.
Unwelcome side effect was he lost his BT email address when he switched.

Almost every farm and anyone with line of sight onto a node is on the
microwave deal around here. It was Clannet now taken over by Quickline.

Current game plan is a government subsidised community fibre
partnership, and you don't get the subsidy if you've already got a
reasonable connection, no matter where from. AIUI, anyway.

--

Roger Hayter

On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

to only
accept either SSL or STARTLS connections now.







--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:



Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers to only
accept either SSL or STARTLS connections now.





Yes, increasingly so.

On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.
The rest accept POP or IMAP connections to recieve mail




--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Not true, SMTP servers often split message transfer and message
submission roles between ports 25 and 587, there's no requirement to
allow relaying.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2476

e.g. for some sites I have configured one server to accept email without
authentication but for delivery to local email ddresses only, and
another server that requires authentication, but will relay to external
addresses.

The former for dozens of dumbish devices (UPSes, printers, etc) that
want to report error conditions, without any danger of them being able
to spam the world.

On 20/12/2019 09:43, Andy Burns wrote:
e.g. for some sites I have configured one server to accept email without
authentication but for delivery to local email ddresses only,

That is a mail server.

and
another server that requires authentication, but will relay to external
addresses.

That is a relay.


--
€œThose who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.€�

€• Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles Ã* M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie Ã* Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 20/12/2019 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Who mentioned SMTP? (clue - only you)

The rest accept POP or IMAP connections to recieve mail

No **** sherlock.

And, are they mail servers?

And is a POP or IMAP server a relay?

Good, glad that's clear. Now wind your neck in, since you are not adding
any value to this discussion.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/12/2019 10:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Who mentioned SMTP? (clue - only you)

Thats because I know that when you send mail through a server, you use SMTP.



The rest accept POP or IMAP connections to recieve mail

No **** sherlock.

And, are they mail servers?

Yes, but they are not mail relays


And is a POP or IMAP server a relay?

No.


Good, glad that's clear. Now wind your neck in, since you are not adding
any value to this discussion.

Good, glad that's clear. Now wind your neck in, since you are not adding
any value to this discussion.





--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own domain so that
when I move internet supplier I can keep the same email addresses. This
has worked fine in the past but now BT will not let me communicate with
Hotmail addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue that some BT
headers look like forgeries to their own email system so that people on
BT cannot always send emails to each other. You have to be unlucky to
encounter this intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to hotmail
addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer service slowly
from half way around the world to move from Plusnet to BT. They are both
nominally the same ISP only with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all. So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

There might indeed be an unresolved cable fault. I now don't care.

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 10:38:12 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 10:30, John Rumm wrote:
Really? IDNET certainly do.

+1 IDNet FTTP has been flawless for me since installation.


Other than BT, there are only a handful of ISPs that offer FTTP at the
moment. They tend to be the more specialist / smaller ones.

There is a list he

https://www.openreach.com/fibre-broa...fttp-providers

Good lord. Thats not many is it? But the three old favourites of A&A
IDNET asnd ZEN are all there.


I wonder why the others havent bothered?


When we all compared how much we paid for broadband IDNET were as cheap
as anyone else.

As I posted just now, IDNET don't cover my location (for whatever reason). I can't now remember which we dismissed on grounds of cost, and which on non-availability.

Hence, we went from Plusnet to BT. (And persuaded Plusnet to refund pre-paid line. Although theoretically non-refundable they accepted that at time of renewal we had no other wired options.) Plusnet were actually pretty good - agreed the refund and automatically refunded something like the day after we switched.

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 13:10:29 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/12/2019 12:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Nope. Its very unilikely that noise levels will give you a 0-4Mpbs range
on a daily basis on a clean cable.

Its far more likely there were bad joints and crackles on it.

I agree. I get 0 - 0.8Mbps on a 9km cable, and that has occasional
faults which generally bring the availability down to 0 - 10%.

If you are that far down in speed it is worth talking to your ISP or
doing some research into what alternatives might work for you. Options
in North Yorkshire include peer to peer microwave links at 20M and
upwards (largish initial install cost but monthly about the same) or
3/4G and an external antenna on a Mifi all you can eat data deal.

There should be a superfast broadband your county initiative if you
live somewhere with rural 10km cable runs of decrepit wet string.

BT were persuaded to give a neighbour an EE 3G modem because they
couldn't provide him with sensible internet speed or reliability.
Unwelcome side effect was he lost his BT email address when he switched.

Almost every farm and anyone with line of sight onto a node is on the
microwave deal around here. It was Clannet now taken over by Quickline.

If we had been genuinely out of town, we might very well have had the option of some sort of wide area wifi or microwave. Lots in the area do. But the suppliers of that assume we are covered by broadband so don't even think about covering us. Why, even 50 metres or so down the road near neighbours had better ADSL and FTTC options. It was just a few of us not able to get anything better.

There is even some non-BT fibre on the other side of the town.

We tried 4G but found we got too many dropouts to be acceptable.

About the only other option we came up with was satellite. But having experience of that, we didn't really want to go down that road.

Further, all the people who plan these things kept saying we were in the plan for an upgrade (to FTTC at the time) but that kept disappearing.

On 20/12/2019 20:00, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own domain so that
when I move internet supplier I can keep the same email addresses. This
has worked fine in the past but now BT will not let me communicate with
Hotmail addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue that some BT
headers look like forgeries to their own email system so that people on
BT cannot always send emails to each other. You have to be unlucky to
encounter this intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to hotmail
addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer service slowly
from half way around the world to move from Plusnet to BT. They are both
nominally the same ISP only with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all. So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

I thought we were talking FTTC






--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 20/12/2019 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/12/2019 10:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Who mentioned SMTP? (clue - only you)

Thats because I know that when you send mail through a server, you use
SMTP.

or Exchange...

Why are you finding it so difficult to understand a simple sentence like:

"Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers to only
accept either SSL or STARTLS connections now. "

For the avoidance of doubt, I do mean all servers, and not just SMTP
relays. In "all servers" I include POP3, IMAP, Exchange, and SMTP. Only
two of those can be relays.

Many ISPs and email hosts will only accept secure connections by
default. MS do it with hosted 365 and Exchange mail accounts, as does
Google, Rackspace and many other large mail hosts.

(you may recall your own difficulty accessing a Gmail account from
Thunderbird for this very reason)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/12/2019 20:00, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own domain so that
when I move internet supplier I can keep the same email addresses. This
has worked fine in the past but now BT will not let me communicate with
Hotmail addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue that some BT
headers look like forgeries to their own email system so that people on
BT cannot always send emails to each other. You have to be unlucky to
encounter this intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to hotmail
addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer service slowly
from half way around the world to move from Plusnet to BT. They are both
nominally the same ISP only with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all. So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

Is FTTP actually available in your location?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday, 20 December 2019 23:49:43 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 20:00, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own domain so that
when I move internet supplier I can keep the same email addresses. This
has worked fine in the past but now BT will not let me communicate with
Hotmail addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue that some BT
headers look like forgeries to their own email system so that people on
BT cannot always send emails to each other. You have to be unlucky to
encounter this intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to hotmail
addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer service slowly
from half way around the world to move from Plusnet to BT. They are both
nominally the same ISP only with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all. So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

Is FTTP actually available in your location?



Yes - that is what I am using right now. OpenReach decided, after surveying, that they would convert the entire estate to FTTP. which they did. Actually connected about a month ago.

FTTC and halfway-acceptable ADSL was available for a large proportion of the houses but, for some reason, there were a few that did not have either available. Just appalling ADSL. Now everyone has the FTTP option. Including the last few houses which are currently being built - OpenReach made sure that there is capacity and they will be connected at the appropriate time.

I'd also like to say that the actual OpenReach staff who came, surveyed and installed were a really friendly, hard-working crew.

On 20/12/2019 23:46, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/12/2019 10:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Who mentioned SMTP? (clue - only you)

Thats because I know that when you send mail through a server, you use
SMTP.

or Exchange...

No one uses X400 and Exchange uses SMTP when talking to the internet and
no ISP on gods earte would use exchange as a mail relay.


Why are you finding it so difficult to understand a simple sentence like:

"Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers to only
accept either SSL or STARTLS connections now. "

#
Because those are mail relay protocols

A server is where the data ends up. A relay is somethinhg it passes through.
Those are part of the updated SMTP protrocols

For the avoidance of doubt, I do mean all servers, and not just SMTP
relays. In "all servers" I include POP3, IMAP, Exchange, and SMTP. Only
two of those can be relays.

POP3 dont use start TLS. Nor I think IMAP. And thsoie are not mail
sensing protocols so fdall oustde te scop[e of thos ducsyssion.

You are weaselling to try and move the defintion of a mail relay to be
identical to that of a mail server. It aint.

You dont need terabytes of storage on a relay for a start.



Many ISPs and email hosts will only accept secure connections by
default. MS do it with hosted 365 and Exchange mail accounts, as does
Google, Rackspace and many other large mail hosts.


Irrelevant, It's still SMTP


(you may recall your own difficulty accessing a Gmail account from
Thunderbird for this very reason)


Not me squire.



--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On 21/12/2019 08:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/12/2019 23:46, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 17:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/12/2019 10:58, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 10:20, John Rumm wrote:
On 19/12/2019 07:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/12/2019 23:23, John Rumm wrote:

Its quite common for the default setup on many mail servers

mail RELAYS.

Not all mail servers are relays.

Oh dear. But all servers accepting SMTP traffic from end users are.

Who mentioned SMTP? (clue - only you)

Thats because I know that when you send mail through a server, you
use SMTP

I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP server", a
"POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair description a software
process running on a server that implements the server end of those
protocols. As distinct from a POP3, IMAP, or SMTP client as typically
implemented in desktop / phone mail applications.

Arguing over which bits are relays and what bits servers is an exercise
in semantics that has no relevance to what was being discussed (i.e. the
increasingly common requirement of mail systems that only secure
protocols are used for mail transfer).

For the avoidance of doubt, I do mean all servers, and not just SMTP
relays. In "all servers" I include POP3, IMAP, Exchange, and SMTP.
Only two of those can be relays.

POP3 dont use start TLS.

It does, the command is STLS

Nor I think IMAP.

That also does, the command is STARTTLS

Full details in the RFC:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2595

And thsoie are not mail
sensing protocols so fdall oustde te scop[e of thos ducsyssion.

And again in English?

You are weaselling to try and move the defintion of a mail relay to be
identical to that of a mail server. It aint.

Whatever... I know what message I intended to convey. Sorry if its not
working for you, but then again your were not the intended recipient.

(you may recall your own difficulty accessing a Gmail account from
Thunderbird for this very reason)


Not me squire.

Your memory must be going :-)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.d...M/P_7dLUMtAwAJ

(you were arguing that you can't use Thunderbird with POP3 for recovery
of mail from a gmail account).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/12/2019 08:35, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 20 December 2019 23:49:43 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 20:00, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own
domain so that when I move internet supplier I can keep
the same email addresses. This has worked fine in the
past but now BT will not let me communicate with Hotmail
addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue
that some BT headers look like forgeries to their own email
system so that people on BT cannot always send emails to
each other. You have to be unlucky to encounter this
intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to
hotmail addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what
error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer
service slowly from half way around the world to move from
Plusnet to BT. They are both nominally the same ISP only
with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all.
So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL
was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there
are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor
day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to
FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

Is FTTP actually available in your location?



Yes - that is what I am using right now. OpenReach decided, after
surveying, that they would convert the entire estate to FTTP. which
they did. Actually connected about a month ago.

You may find it was just a case of the database of available services
had not been updated at the time you were looking. You can use the
lookup on the IDNet website to find out now:

https://www.idnet.net/data_products/...band.php#GFast

(that searches for GFast and FTTP availability)

FTTC and halfway-acceptable ADSL was available for a large proportion
of the houses but, for some reason, there were a few that did not
have either available. Just appalling ADSL. Now everyone has the FTTP
option. Including the last few houses which are currently being built
- OpenReach made sure that there is capacity and they will be
connected at the appropriate time.

I'd also like to say that the actual OpenReach staff who came,
surveyed and installed were a really friendly, hard-working crew.

Yup, often the case - the guys on the ground doing the work are usually
very good. Dealing with BT retail however is often a less rewarding
exercise!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP server", a
"POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair description a software
process running on a server that implements the server end of those
protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.


--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 15:51:13 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 08:35, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Friday, 20 December 2019 23:49:43 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/12/2019 20:00, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 20:16:16 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 17/12/2019 19:38, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Tuesday, 17 December 2019 16:52:45 UTC, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/12/2019 10:05, Broadback wrote:
I recently switched from Plus net to BT. I have my own
domain so that when I move internet supplier I can keep
the same email addresses. This has worked fine in the
past but now BT will not let me communicate with Hotmail
addresses. Why, and is there a way around this problem?

You are probably doing something wrong. There is an issue
that some BT headers look like forgeries to their own email
system so that people on BT cannot always send emails to
each other. You have to be unlucky to encounter this
intermittent problem but I have seen it happen.

I can't see any reason why BT should blacklist sending to
hotmail addresses - how exactly does it fail and with what
error msg?

I can only assume you enjoy paying more to get customer
service slowly from half way around the world to move from
Plusnet to BT. They are both nominally the same ISP only
with different external skins.

We too have moved from Plusnet to BT.

Plusnet would not offer a connection using FTTP. Not at all.
So, given we have just had FTTP made available and our ADSL
was appalling[1], we had to find an ISP that does - and there
are not many.

Really? IDNET certainly do.


[1] Appalling meaning a good day gave 4 Mbps download. A poor
day gave 0.07 Mbps. A bad day gave 0.0 Mbps. Hence moving to
FTTP was essential.

Then you had an unresolved cable fault.

IDNET do NOT offer FTTP for my location.

Is FTTP actually available in your location?



Yes - that is what I am using right now. OpenReach decided, after
surveying, that they would convert the entire estate to FTTP. which
they did. Actually connected about a month ago.

You may find it was just a case of the database of available services
had not been updated at the time you were looking. You can use the
lookup on the IDNet website to find out now:

https://www.idnet.net/data_products/...band.php#GFast

(that searches for GFast and FTTP availability)

FTTC and halfway-acceptable ADSL was available for a large proportion
of the houses but, for some reason, there were a few that did not
have either available. Just appalling ADSL. Now everyone has the FTTP
option. Including the last few houses which are currently being built
- OpenReach made sure that there is capacity and they will be
connected at the appropriate time.

I'd also like to say that the actual OpenReach staff who came,
surveyed and installed were a really friendly, hard-working crew.

Yup, often the case - the guys on the ground doing the work are usually
very good. Dealing with BT retail however is often a less rewarding
exercise!


Had already checked before posting - still not there.

So far, even BT retail have been OK. They took the order, kept us informed, sent the router, chaps turned up, all done. And working. Cashback on order is processing apparently OK.

Pretty much the only complaint has been an excess of communication - multiple emails and texts. But that is better than not enough.

On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP server",
a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair description a
software process running on a server that implements the server end of
those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client to
connect, then its a server.

The term SMTP server is in very common use. For example:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-7.9

(131 matches for "SMTP Server" in there, Vs 3 for "SMTP Relay")




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client to
connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.



The term SMTP server is in very common use. For example:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-7.9

(131 matches for "SMTP Server" in there, Vs 3 for "SMTP Relay")






--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes. In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.

--

Roger Hayter

On 22/12/2019 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that
implements the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP
relay, because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like
ports and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface.

Indeed - although that is not the bit doing the layer 3 routing.

It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes of course it does. Its running a web server, ftp server etc.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes. In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then. Not a 'server'
And a mail relay a mail relay, not a mail server.




--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 23/12/2019 01:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/12/2019 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that
implements the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP
relay, because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a
client to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I
am somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip
on networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is
layer 3 device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts
like ports and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface.

Indeed - although that is not the bit doing the layer 3 routing.

It listens to telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes of course it does. Its running a web server, ftp server etc.


Why dont we call it a server then?






--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 23/12/2019 19:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like
ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes.Â*Â* In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then. Not a 'server'

Because that is its primary function. It likely has a network switch
built in as well, but they don't call it that. Same for the built in WAP.

In addition to its layer 3 routing capabilities, it will have many
actual servers built in that typically operate at OSI layers 4/5 and
above, to facilitate management and other activities. The obvious ones
being things like a DHCP server, plus HTTP, and Telnet/SSH servers to
allow configuration. WPS server for automatic wifi configuration.

Same is true for pretty much any other box you plug into a network these
days.

And a mail relay aÂ* mail relay, not a mail server.

All mail relays are servers, not all servers are mail relays.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes. In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then.
Because that is its main job.

Not a 'server'
It is a server too though.

And a mail relay a mail relay, not a mail server.

A mail relay is an SMTP server and also an SMTP client. If it also
provides a local (in the connectivity rather than geographical sense)
mail service then it will have, or share data with, a POP3 or IMAP (or
proprietary eg MS) server.


--

Roger Hayter

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/12/2019 01:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 22/12/2019 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that
implements the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP
relay, because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a
client to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I
am somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip
on networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is
layer 3 device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts
like ports and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface.

Indeed - although that is not the bit doing the layer 3 routing.

It listens to telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes of course it does. Its running a web server, ftp server etc.


Why dont we call it a server then?


The router I am using at the moment is an Atom (C2000) based PC which
performs routing, NAT, firewall function and also contains such servers
as DHCP, HTTP, syslog, ssh and some samba related networking service
that doesn't actually work. I could probably call it a server, but
mainly it's a router. Next to it as a machine that includes a
functioning mail relay that in the context is probably better described
as a local mail server.


--

Roger Hayter

On 23/12/2019 19:34, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/12/2019 19:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that
implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP
relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like
ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes.Â*Â* In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then. Not a 'server'

Because that is its primary function. It likely has a network switch
built in as well, but they don't call it that. Same for the built in WAP.

In addition to its layer 3 routing capabilities, it will have many
actual servers built in that typically operate at OSI layers 4/5 and
above, to facilitate management and other activities. The obvious ones
being things like a DHCP server, plus HTTP, and Telnet/SSH servers to
allow configuration. WPS server for automatic wifi configuration.

Same is true for pretty much any other box you plug into a network these
days.

And a mail relay aÂ* mail relay, not a mail server.

All mail relays are servers, not all servers are mail relays.


Oh dear. Relaying mail is its 'primary function'. Not serving mail.

Doublethink is strong in this one


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 23/12/2019 20:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like
ports
and sockets.

Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes.Â*Â* In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.

I wonder why we call it a 'router' then. Not a 'server'
And a mail relay aÂ* mail relay, not a mail server.

Because that is their primary function.

Exactly.


--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 23/12/2019 20:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes. In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then.
Because that is its main job.

Not a 'server'
It is a server too though.

And a mail relay a mail relay, not a mail server.

A mail relay is an SMTP server and also an SMTP client. If it also
provides a local (in the connectivity rather than geographical sense)
mail service then it will have, or share data with, a POP3 or IMAP (or
proprietary eg MS) server.


But mail *relays* do NOT, and have not since pretty much the days when
the internet took off, because the primary meed for a mail *server* is
massive storage and resilience, whereas a mail relay is the ability to
handle many connections and good connectivity and anti-spam security.

Very different hardware and software requirements.





--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 24/12/2019 09:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/12/2019 20:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I wonder why we call it a 'router' then.
Because that is its main job.

Not a 'server'
It is a server too though.

And a mail relay aÂ* mail relay, not a mail server.

A mail relay is an SMTP server and also an SMTP client.Â* If it also
provides a local (in the connectivity rather than geographical sense)
mail service then it will have, or share data with, a POP3 or IMAP (or
proprietary eg MS) server.

But mail *relays* do NOT, and have not since pretty much the days when
the internet took off, because the primary meed for a mail *server* is
massive storage and resilience, whereas a mail relay is the ability to
handle many connections and good connectivity and anti-spam security.

Very different hardware and software requirements.

Of the 8 providers that I'm configured to pick up mail from or send it
to, 6 have the same IP address for POP and SMTP. The two that don't are
gmail and yahoo.

Not my fault if you deal with shonky little outfits :-)

And no guarantee that that neans they are on the same machine either.

NAT isnt just used in domestic or end user setups


gmail is the only one with an IPv6 address.



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 24/12/2019 00:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/12/2019 19:34, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/12/2019 19:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/12/2019 00:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/12/2019 13:57, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 21/12/2019 19:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 21/12/2019 16:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/12/2019 15:45, John Rumm wrote:
I think most would be comfortable with the concept of a "SMTP
server", a "POP3 server" and an "IMAP server" as being fair
description a software process running on a server that
implements
the server end of those protocols.

They might be, but the established terminology is of an SMTP
relay,
because it *serves* nothing.

If it sits there with an open rendezvous port, waiting for a
client
to connect, then its a server.

No, it isnt.

A router does that.

No, routers route packets.

For some reason I can't see TNP's reply which you quoted. However
I am
somewhat surprised by it since I had thought he had a better grip on
networking related stuff and hence would know that a router is
layer 3
device with no concept of end to end transport steam concepts like
ports
and sockets.


Every router I have had has a management interface. It listens to
telnelt ssh or http.
Does that make it a server?

Yes.Â*Â* In a rather trivial, but undeniable, sense.


I wonder why we call it a 'router' then. Not a 'server'

Because that is its primary function. It likely has a network switch
built in as well, but they don't call it that. Same for the built in WAP.

In addition to its layer 3 routing capabilities, it will have many
actual servers built in that typically operate at OSI layers 4/5 and
above, to facilitate management and other activities. The obvious ones
being things like a DHCP server, plus HTTP, and Telnet/SSH servers to
allow configuration. WPS server for automatic wifi configuration.

Same is true for pretty much any other box you plug into a network
these days.

And a mail relay aÂ* mail relay, not a mail server.

All mail relays are servers, not all servers are mail relays.


Oh dear. Relaying mail is its 'primary function'. Not servingÂ* mail.

You seem to be trying to contort into a semantic oozlum bird, and I
think you are close to succeeding.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/