Re: solution time for www/smtp hole
Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>
From: Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu>
To: Rob Raisch <raisch@ora.com>
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: solution time for www/smtp hole
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1993 22:57:50 -0400."
<Pine.3.03.9308122248.B17376-a100000@ruby.ora.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 23:17:45 -0500
Message-id: <15553.745215465@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Sender: mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu
Status: RO
Thus wrote: Rob Raisch
>BRRRRAAAAPPPP.... Sorry. Not acceptable. Many, many gophers run on other
>ports than 70. Most of the stuff I admin runs on other ports for the
>simple reason that to limit access to a section of your gopher hierarchy
>you need to run another server.
Sigh. It seems such a pity that port allocation is dictated by silly
software limitations, and not just regarding this. One well-designed
server should be able to do everything on just one port.
Unfortunately, since addresses tend to stick around, we're probably
stuck with multiple ports for quite a while until things get fixed
properly.
I think allowing ports of 70+n for small values of n and >1024 (and
maybe a couple other idioms) handles virtually all these (ugly) cases
though. As long as the effect of suspicious ports is only a minor
inconvenience (present the URL, ask for confirmation) there isn't any
real functionality lost.
- Marc V
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here