The contents of the Extended SMTP page were merged into Simple Mail Transfer Protocol on 17 September 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Mail Transfer Protocol page were merged into Simple Mail Transfer Protocol on 19 March 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I updated the history to deal with a chronology cit request placed there in 2012. Maybe this has not been dealt with as it was not entirely clear what the request was asking for. However as it was a chronology request I think it likely it was the statement that BSD 4.1c was released "right after" RFC 788. The RFC is dated November 1981 (and already cited in the article). BSD 4.1c was released 1982/1983 which is not "right after" the RFC so I have corrected the sentence and as everything else is cited, I am not sure it needs a citation. If it needs one, it would be the release date of BSD 4.1c. Nevertheless WP:OVERCITE pertains. This is not really controversial enough for a citation now in my opinion, so I boldly removed the chronology cit request after my rewording. If an editor disagrees, I suggest citing the release date of 4.1c BSD would be sufficient to establish chronology. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone explain this?
A fairly obscure techie article on WP, with no overlap to Hollywood, rappers or the usual traffic drivers, went from small amounts of traffic (a respectable 40,000 / month) to a massive 4 and 12 million in October and November 2019. I've never seen a hundred-fold increase like that, unless someone dies or a new film is announced. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Extended SMTP into this article for the reasons described on Talk:Extended SMTP. Since I forgot to add the merge tags to the actual article bodies, I'm posting this here now to follow the proper protocol. The original proposal received only one comment ("Agree"). I'm looking forward to any comments on this matter. Thank you. Anton.bersh ( talk) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose merger of Mail Transfer Protocol (MTP) into this article's History section because:
If there are no objections, I can carry out the merge myself. Anton.bersh ( talk) 17:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I just removed "SMTP transport example" section because I believe it does not fit Wikipedia standards:
If you object to this change, please feel free to revert it. Also, please take a second to comment why you did so and how the section can be improved. Anton.bersh ( talk) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Assuming negotiated, can't BDAT, RFC 3030, fully replace DATA? If so, are Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol#Protocol_overview, and perhaps other sections of the article, not accurate? In any case, shouldn't BDAT mentioned at least once in the article? 147.161.13.105 ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's incorrect about my edit that was reverted.
As I understand (as explained in Simple Mail Transfer Protocol#Ports), server-server communication always uses port 25, while client-server can use port 25, 465 or 587. (Where for client-server communication, port 465 is preferred since RFC 8314.) So anywhere were port 587 is allowed, port 465 is too.
@ Zac67: Please let me know if I've got something wrong. -- Lonaowna ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the Extended SMTP page were merged into Simple Mail Transfer Protocol on 17 September 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Mail Transfer Protocol page were merged into Simple Mail Transfer Protocol on 19 March 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I updated the history to deal with a chronology cit request placed there in 2012. Maybe this has not been dealt with as it was not entirely clear what the request was asking for. However as it was a chronology request I think it likely it was the statement that BSD 4.1c was released "right after" RFC 788. The RFC is dated November 1981 (and already cited in the article). BSD 4.1c was released 1982/1983 which is not "right after" the RFC so I have corrected the sentence and as everything else is cited, I am not sure it needs a citation. If it needs one, it would be the release date of BSD 4.1c. Nevertheless WP:OVERCITE pertains. This is not really controversial enough for a citation now in my opinion, so I boldly removed the chronology cit request after my rewording. If an editor disagrees, I suggest citing the release date of 4.1c BSD would be sufficient to establish chronology. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone explain this?
A fairly obscure techie article on WP, with no overlap to Hollywood, rappers or the usual traffic drivers, went from small amounts of traffic (a respectable 40,000 / month) to a massive 4 and 12 million in October and November 2019. I've never seen a hundred-fold increase like that, unless someone dies or a new film is announced. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Extended SMTP into this article for the reasons described on Talk:Extended SMTP. Since I forgot to add the merge tags to the actual article bodies, I'm posting this here now to follow the proper protocol. The original proposal received only one comment ("Agree"). I'm looking forward to any comments on this matter. Thank you. Anton.bersh ( talk) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose merger of Mail Transfer Protocol (MTP) into this article's History section because:
If there are no objections, I can carry out the merge myself. Anton.bersh ( talk) 17:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I just removed "SMTP transport example" section because I believe it does not fit Wikipedia standards:
If you object to this change, please feel free to revert it. Also, please take a second to comment why you did so and how the section can be improved. Anton.bersh ( talk) 18:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Assuming negotiated, can't BDAT, RFC 3030, fully replace DATA? If so, are Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol#Protocol_overview, and perhaps other sections of the article, not accurate? In any case, shouldn't BDAT mentioned at least once in the article? 147.161.13.105 ( talk) 18:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's incorrect about my edit that was reverted.
As I understand (as explained in Simple Mail Transfer Protocol#Ports), server-server communication always uses port 25, while client-server can use port 25, 465 or 587. (Where for client-server communication, port 465 is preferred since RFC 8314.) So anywhere were port 587 is allowed, port 465 is too.
@ Zac67: Please let me know if I've got something wrong. -- Lonaowna ( talk) 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)