Re: Re-connecting

--- Lysse <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Drake wrote:
> 
> > And yet MANY lists of "common ports" show POP3
> >
> >running BOTH on TCP AND UDP.  Good grief, people
> >act like I'm making this up.  Anyway, I see no
> >reason for assinine comments like "are you smoking
> >something" or "you're being silly" or whatever.
> >
> >  
> >
> Maybe they're all derived from the same list. Maybe
> it's just a standard 
> way of setting them up. Maybe POP2 had a UDP
> implementation once and the 
> POP3 list was derived from there...
> 
> Set against that, you have the RFC, the very nature
> of a POP3 connection 
> (which last time I used telnet to port 110, assumed
> a constant 
> connection between the two machines, the dropping of
> which would signal 
> the end of the connection), and a noticeable paucity
> of POP3 servers 
> that advertise UDP support.
> 
> You're taking one source that says what you want to
> hear and saying that 
> all the sources that contradict it are wrong. 

Ummmmm...here's a clue.  I never said anyone was
"wrong".  And I didn't get this from a "single
source".  It's more like a couple hundred sources.
Also I don't see how I'M the "bad guy" in this 
situation. 

> Well,
> you're welcome to do 
> that, but it's verging on the solipsistic.

You know, there was a decent response that 
nicely explained UDP/TCP POP3 port thingy
without being "preachy".  Why is that SO
difficult?  All I did was make a simple 
suggestion based off of what I thought was
good information.  Ok, fine it wasn't the BEST 
info.  I'm willing to let it go at that.

Regards,

John M. Drake




		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250