- From: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:28:39 -0800
- To: Mark Shuttleworth <marks@thawte.com>
- CC: Christian Kuhtz <chk@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@consensus.com>, Tim Hudson <tjh@mincom.com>, ietf-tls@w3.org, ssl-talk@netscape.com
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > >> People keep claiming that ports below 1024 are somehow "sacred". I >> have yet to hear a convincing argument for why this is so. In the >> old days, the OS reserved those ports for protected use and normal >> user programs couldn't use them. With the proliferation of PCs, it >> is trivial for someone to get a program to listen on one of those >> ports. So, why are these ports so special? > > In this case, surely you could have no objection to: > > nntps 2001/tcp # NNTP over SSL/TLS > ldaps 2002/tcp # LDAP over SSL/TLS > ... None whatsoever. -- You should only break rules of style if you can | Tom Weinstein coherently explain what you gain by so doing. | tomw@netscape.com
Received on Thursday, 6 February 1997 13:57:26 UTC