Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:22:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hal3000.cx ([69.217.43.23] ident=root) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) id 1HddL8-00006A-8H for gopher@complete.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:22:43 -0500 Received: from work1.hal3000.cx (work1.hal3000.cx [10.0.0.2]) by hal3000.cx (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA14385 for <gopher@complete.org>; Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:22:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from chris@hal3000.cx) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:20:13 -0500 From: Chris <chris@hal3000.cx> To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one Message-Id: <20070416212013.26ea8d5d@work1.hal3000.cx> In-Reply-To: <46241B43.1050008@aaronjangel.us> References: <607535.83152.qm@web35511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <46241B43.1050008@aaronjangel.us> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.1): AWL=0.082 X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:22:43 -0500 X-archive-position: 1592 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: chris@hal3000.cx Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: <mailto:ecartis@complete.org?Subject=help> List-unsubscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=unsubscribe> List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: Gopher <gopher.complete.org> X-List-ID: Gopher <gopher.complete.org> List-subscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=subscribe> List-owner: <mailto:jgoerzen@complete.org> List-post: <mailto:gopher@complete.org> List-archive: <http://www.complete.org/mailinglists/archives/> X-list: gopher

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>