From: gopher-bounce@complete.org Date: Tue Apr 17 04:25:06 2007 Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one Gee Aaron you said it with alot less words :) Chris P.S. thanks for your responses on bugzilla, they along with Jon's were very well put. On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:56:35 -0500 "Aaron J. Angel" <thatoneguy@aaronjangel.us> wrote: > JumpJet Mailbox wrote: > > I am however wondering why the Port issue is such a hot spot? > > The simple answer is you can't run multiple Gopher servers on the same > port and IP address. Additionally, there are other services with which > Gopher clients can interact that do not run on port 70. WHOIS and > Finger come immediately to mind. > > > Still, there are indeed several advantages to having software stick > > to specific Ports. > > Agreed; which is why Mozilla can't finger or whois. > > > Another advantage of having certain Protocals stick to a single (or > > at least a very limited range) of Ports is the ease of which a Client > > / Browser can detect a Server. This is why there are millions of > > HTTP web pages operating on Port 80 (or Port 8080) rather than on > > Port "X". Non-technical persons who surf the Web, typically don't > > want to be constantly appending Port numbers to the end of an IP > > address. > > That's what links (or Gopher menus) are for. The main content is > available from the main port. Port 8080 is used not because it is a > "standard", but because it is easy to remember. Users must always type > these non-standard ports into the address field, or otherwise link to it > from somewhere else. > > > With only about 200 or so Internet Gopher Servers worldwide (and only > > about a dozen still actively updated), why is using Port 70 such a > > hardship??? Is it because of a imperative need to run Dual Protocol > > servers? > > Multiple Gopher servers on the same host (there's no such thing as > Gopher VHost); perhaps security constraints (many ISPs block specific > ports) prevents the Gopher operator from assuming root priviledges, or > simply doesn't want to. > > > It is indeed unfortunate that many Browsers that understand > > Gopherspace can not recognize Gopher on a Port other than 70. This > > is due primarily to lazyness on the part of the software programmer > > With Mozilla (Firefox), it was actually the opposite. The developers > actively block Gopher requests to ports other than 70 or rewrite URLs > without notifying the user. > > > With such a limited selection of Clients / Browsers able to choose a > > Port other than 70, why not just stick with Port 70?? > > Sometimes its not a choice. > > > Should a unique Server have to operate on a different Port, the > > Server Administrator should just assume that his Server will be of > > limited accessability as his patrons must INTENTIONALLY use one of > > the very few Clients / Browsers that can operatate on a Port other > > than 70 > > The server operator shouldn't care about the infrastructure of its > clients' networks. That's up to the client. (-: > > > So, in conclusion; Why is operating a Gopher Server on JUST Port 70 > > such a burden? > > See up. > > -- > Aaron J. Angel. You know, That One Guy! <thatoneguy@aaronjangel.us> > Visit me on the web at http://www.aaronjangel.us/. > > > -- Join FSF as an Associate Member at: <URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014> Thread start (DIR) [gopher] Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one Thread start (DIR) [gopher] Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one