# Re: request for a new URL scheme

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:54:33 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)"
- In reply to: John C. Daub: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"

    To: hsoi@tamu.edu

    In-Reply-To: "John C. Daub"'s message of Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:35:02 -0700 <Pine.SOL.3.92.960410143008.2603A-100000@tam2000.tamu.edu>

    Subject: Re: request for a new URL scheme

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <96Apr10.185443pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:54:33 PDT

> I would rather see browers that allowed telnet-style helper apps to
> be specified on a per-port basis.

Now that I understand what this means, I don't think it is very
useful, but it's also easy to do.

Not useful:

Lately, I've had to telnet to hosts that use random port numbers to
avoid the "ping every port 23 in the word and then try to log in"
hackers. Apparently this is a common approach for bastion hosts and
does seem to slow down the site crackers.

But I've also seen muds that run mud service on one port, HTTP on
another, POP3 on another, NTTP on another, and they're all in the >256
range. Since port number selection is random, something that selects
one kind of app for port 8000 and another for port 8888 doesn't seem
to be very useful (to me.)

Easy:

Write a program called 'metatelnet' and have it call 'telnet' for one
port range, 'mudclient' for another, etc.

I mean, you can just have your generic telnet launch other apps.

- Next message: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)"
- In reply to: John C. Daub: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"