Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:10:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from floodgap.com ([66.159.214.137] ident=elvis) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) id 1IDNtY-0000bb-GO for gopher@complete.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:10:05 -0500 Received: (from spectre@localhost) by floodgap.com (6.6.6.666.1/2007.01.03) id l6OH9wNB005842 for gopher@complete.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:09:58 -0700 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) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL39 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0): AWL=0.006 X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:10:05 -0500 X-archive-position: 1671 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: spectre@floodgap.com 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

> > 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 ----------------------------------------------