Re: solution time for www/smtp hole

Marc VanHeyningen <>
From: Marc VanHeyningen <>
To: Rob Raisch <>
Subject: Re: solution time for www/smtp hole 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Aug 1993 22:57:50 -0400."
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 23:17:45 -0500
Message-id: <>
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

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  MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here