# Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

Paul Hoffman (ietf-lists@proper.com)
Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:19:48 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Previous message: Stephen D. Williams: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"

    Message-Id: <v02110106ab6d8f5baa56@[165.227.40.29]>

    Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:19:48 -0700

    To: miked@ncd.com (Michael A. Dolan)

    From: ietf-lists@proper.com (Paul Hoffman)

    Subject: Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL

>Seems unnecessarily restrictive - local host fingerd, and ( to a lesser
>extent) standard ports only.

I'm not sure what you mean by "local host fingerd". Yes, it is restrictive
to the port number: so is RFC 1288. Like Reed, I haven't ever come across a
finger daemon running on a different port. For that matter, I've never come
across a finger client that allows you to specify a port, either. As I have
recently learned, there is no reason to solve problems that don't yet
exist.

On the other hand, if you have seen examples of finger running on ports
other than 79, and you feel that such systems warrant a change in the URL,
please let me know.

--Paul Hoffman
--Proper Publishing

- Next message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Previous message: Stephen D. Williams: "Re: DNS vs HOME PAGE[S]?"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "New Internet-Draft: finger URL"
- Next in thread: Paul Hoffman: "Re: New Internet-Draft: finger URL"