Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:10:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.163.179.132]) by glockenspiel.complete.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) id 1IDiVs-0005lg-Mw for gopher@complete.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:10:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 22493 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Jul 2007 15:10:49 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=J0nzkyyiJXgDK0Q4cxPZmtoGRfqCiqZjQh9iuD+gXC7DLTW60dRAOFudNYiWxXNHl3KODs5Tlh966paIhMLIbVz6RoKOIKsT5iKYali0oxRjzmlsgw/pt2GwuCDA2dVZWfg7vEbum5o/DrYd16KY/QNkdippxgpo5EkuBYOFyvw=; X-YMail-OSG: luQlqPEVM1kwSYTaKX4dm7f6AEd3rf4mdlJAW6gWb44Jy.ipAywuy8G4I8MTKthDpw-- Received: from [209.216.94.5] by web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:10:49 PDT Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:10:49 -0700 (PDT) From: JumpJet Mailbox Subject: [gopher] Re: Problem with SiMpLeMaChInEs To: gopher@complete.org In-Reply-To: <200707241651.l6OGpjsS007715@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <882972.21894.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Status: No (score 2.1): AWL=-0.708, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.44, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS=0.879, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:10:58 -0500 X-archive-position: 1674 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: jumpjetinfo@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: Gopher X-List-ID: Gopher List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: gopher Testing indicates that software expecting to see gopher on Port 70 will NOT translate to another port. BROWSERS: Bobcat for DOS will fail Lynx for DOS will fail Internet Explorer will NOT see your server, and will either give an error message (if attaching to a sub-directory) or crash the browser if connecting to the root directory. Older versions of Lynx for Windows will fail [but upgrading to the newest version will work]. Older versions of Firefox will fail [but upgrading to the newest version will work]. The MSNTV (WebTV) browser will fail. GOPHER CLIENTS: Documentation indicates the Acorn Risk OS client will fail. Documentation indicates the Atari MiNT client will fail. Documentation indicates the IBM CMS mainframe clients will fail. Documentation indicates the VAX mainframe client will fail. The MOO object will fail The AmigaOS client will fail. The OS/2 client will fail. All the Windows 3.1 clients tested so far have failed. All the DOS clients tested so far have failed. I have not tested either the Commodore 64 client, Macintosh clients, the NeXT client, or the Unix clients. A while ago when SiMpLe MaChInEs was operating on Port 70, there was no problem with any of the above software connecting. Moving your server off of Port 70 for a "preceived" security concern is preventing a large chunk of software and potential users (especially in non-US countries where older equipment dominates) from reaching your Server. Whether any of us like it or not, much software is "Hard Coded" to expect Gopher on Port 70. Note that JumpJet has always operated on Port 70, and there has never been any security breaches because of its using Port 70. I urge you to switch back. SiMpLe MaChInEs wrote: JumpJet Mailbox wrote: > Yes, testing has confirmed that it is indeed a Port 70 issue. This is > now preventing computer platforms using either Windows or Pure DOS (and > I suspect Atari, Acorn, and Amiga) from accessing your Server. Well, I'm not so sure it's a Winderz problem. I just pulled Simple up on Firefox-2.0.0.5 on XP-Pro/SP2 without any issues. Below are the browser specifics: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070713 Firefox/2.0.0.5 I don't have any other Windows versions to test. Maybe it's a Windows Firewall issue, though I don't have any unusual exceptions in mine. > > 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. -Jeff --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!