> On May 7, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:44 AM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote on 07/05/2020 15:19: >>> The community is invited to provide comments on this change. We would >>> like to move forward on or after May 31st >> >> Please do. POP2 hasn't been seen in the wild for decades. > > 'in the wild' ... but what about users on systems which don't make > that available over the wild internet? So what? Nothing prevents these servers to continue listening for POP2 on port 109. The only issue would arise if some newly popular service expected to run on port 109. The servers could not run both POP2 and that new service on the same port. But if these are rarely updated legacy servers, then an hypothetical new service would not be a high priority, would it? -- Christian Huitema >
