- From: Wolfgang Röckelein <wolfgang.roeckelein@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 10:28:29 +0100
- To: Tom Weinstein <tomw@netscape.com>
- Cc: Mark Shuttleworth <marks@thawte.com>, 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
Tom Weinstein wrote: > 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. Well, aren't some of the ports around 2000 already reserved? Wolfgang
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 04:07:47 UTC