- From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.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 > >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 sounds like a good idea to me -- simple, effective, and covers future port allocations cleanly. > 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. Agreed. Ned
Received on Saturday, 7 January 1995 18:37:17 UTC