Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 03:07:01 -0500
From: Chris <chris@hal3000.cx>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Problem with SiMpLeMaChInEs
Message-Id: <20070726030701.5b823ee0@work1.hal3000.cx>
In-Reply-To: <882972.21894.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <200707241651.l6OGpjsS007715@sdf.lonestar.org>
	<882972.21894.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
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

Are we back on this non port 70 thing again?
My 2 cents
All Gopher clients need to be able to use ports other than port 70
all old ones did or they werent able to use the search engines, not to mention the rest of the servers not on 70, but we went over this already.
The protocol allows and promotes non 70, if the client cant it is "bad"
or limited at the least, use a better one so that you might be able to use gopherspace fully.
In other countries they don't have linux, freebsd and the other free O.S's?
I say we move em all off port 70 and keep them all guessin ;)
Chris

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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 <simple@sdf.lonestar.org> 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!
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Join FSF as an Associate Member at:
<URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014>