Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:52:01 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) id 1IDNc7-0008HG-Cb for gopher@complete.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:52:01 -0500 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:simple@norge.freeshell.org [192.94.73.3]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6OGpj2d007364 for <gopher@complete.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:51:46 GMT Received: (from simple@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.1/8.12.8/Submit) id l6OGpjsS007715 for gopher@complete.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:51:45 -0700 (EDT) From: SiMpLe MaChInEs <simple@sdf.lonestar.org> Message-Id: <200707241651.l6OGpjsS007715@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:51:45 -0700 To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: Problem with SiMpLeMaChInEs References: <218366.48828.qm@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <218366.48828.qm@web35504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0): AWL=0.000 X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:52:01 -0500 X-archive-position: 1670 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: simple@sdf.lonestar.org 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

JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@yahoo.com> 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