W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 1995

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

From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@hal.com>
Date: 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
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

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.

Received on Thursday, 5 January 1995 17:02:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:29 UTC