nanog mailing list archives
Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request]
From: Jason Hellenthal via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 18:19:50 -0600
No problem. We all come across this here and there. We all fail 100 times or more but perception will always be key in how we obtain a final objective that benefits everyone. Thomas Edison failed thousands of times but of all those times his success only came from the knowledge of those so many failures. -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Jan 12, 2019, at 18:13, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan <giri () dombox org> wrote: Jason, Your comment is one of the best I have seen in this thread. Thanks for the input and being neutral.
Current thread:
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request], (continued)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Eric Tykwinski (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] valdis . kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Cummings, Chris (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Enough port 26 talk... Richard (Jan 12)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 13)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... John Levine (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... John R. Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Miles Fidelman (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Stephen Satchell (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Tei (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... James Downs (Jan 15)
- RE: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Keith Medcalf (Jan 15)