Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Thu, 05 Jan 1995 15:55:16 -0600


Message-Id: <9501052155.AA10704@ulua.hal.com>
To: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jan 1995 12:39:54 MST."
             <01HLHKVL7ZL68ZDW0P@INNOSOFT.COM> 
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 1995 15:55:16 -0600
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

In message <01HLHKVL7ZL68ZDW0P@INNOSOFT.COM>, Ned Freed writes:
>> > ... and a list of standard ports to shun should probably be added.
>
>This leaves the following ports that are clearly either useless or potentially
>harmful:

Couldn't this be generalized a little bit? Can't we assume, for
example, that the HTTP service is _always_ either on port 80, or on
some port >1024?

Similarly, gopher is _always_ either on port 79 or on some port >1024.

This rules out the gopher: hack to access finger info. I won't loose
any sleep over that. A finger: URL should probably be deployed, along
with gateway interim solutions.

Dan