From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: From: Quintile Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:28:48 +0000 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [9fans] 9 Atom - installation troubles Topicbox-Message-UUID: 34854c68-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 by submission do you jest mean a different port? did you try adding a port to the SMTP attribute in your /lib/nab/local smtp=3Dhost!987 -Steve On 6 Dec 2014, at 09:09, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: >> I can't be certain but looks like proxima.alt.za delegates >> actual email delivery to turo-smtp.net. >=20 > There's a transparent proxy just the other side of my long-distance > wi-fi link, I'm not sure why my ISP feels they have to pay a third > party to interfere with email, but I think there may be a national > intelligence issue involved: our government has mooted digital > communication interception regulations for a while, but I haven't > followed the details. I know whom to ask, though. >=20 > In the meantime, I note that the transparent interception does not > apply to the "submission" TCP port, port 587, so I think I'll hack > smtp to use that instead. Right now, I'm going to build a copy of > smtp with a modified mxdial.c, but I wonder what a consensus here > would be: an option to smpt that invokes a "submit" function that only > differs from mxdial() in the use of the service argument, or a generic > port number on smtp's command line with a more complex, but now common > to both options, mxdial()? >=20 > Or maybe, as I'm doing now, a distinct "submit" command instead of > "smtp"? >=20 > Lucio. >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------- > This email has been scanned by the MxScan Email Security System. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------