# Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

Reed Wade (wade@cs.utk.edu)
Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:06:05 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"

    Message-Id: <9410251606.AA03219@honk.cs.utk.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Port for URN->URC resolution

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Oct 1994 07:28:20 BST."

                 <aad25500020210049b8e@[130.237.222.116]>

    Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:06:05 -0400

    From: Reed Wade <wade@cs.utk.edu>

As Patrik Faltstrom sez:

>IF my server daemon dies, I don't want any user on my system to be able to
>start a new daemon.

The main usefulness is on for server side maintenance. If something's
using that port it's less likely that some random user has been playing
around.

That's pretty useful.

But yeah, I don't believe anyone here _really_ thinks of it as the S word.

-reed

    --
    Netlib Development Group
    wade@cs.utk.edu -- http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/ReedWade.html

- Next message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Re: Current URN syntax is unacceptable"
- Previous message: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- In reply to: Patrik Faltstrom: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"
- Next in thread: Dave Crocker: "Re: Port for URN->URC resolution"