From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre@floodgap.com>
Message-Id: <200707241709.l6OH9wNB005842@floodgap.com>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Problem with SiMpLeMaChInEs
In-Reply-To: <200707241651.l6OGpjsS007715@sdf.lonestar.org> from SiMpLe
 MaChInEs at "Jul 24, 7 09:51:45 am"
To: gopher@complete.org
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

> > Is there any vital reason why you had to move the server away from
> > Port 70, and is there any compelling reason why you could not return it
> > to Port 70?
> 
> I'd rather not use a privileged port because the server then needs to be
> run by root and is possibly more susceptible to security breaches.  I
> think this is a pretty common strategy with other network services, ie.
> NATing 80 to 8000 for web servers.

But it's the NAT doing the translation, right? So it should still appear to
*external* hosts that it's port 70, yes? It looks that way to me here with
Lynx and with Camino (Mac OS X).

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- In memory of Werner Klemperer ----------------------------------------------