# Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]

Ned Freed (NED@innosoft.com)
Sat, 07 Jan 1995 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Previous message: Karen R. Sollins: "Consider writing a paper for this..."
- Next in thread: Marc VanHeyningen: "Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]"
- Reply: Marc VanHeyningen: "Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]"

    Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 15:35:36 -0700 (PDT)

    From: Ned Freed <NED@innosoft.com>

    Subject: Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]

    In-Reply-To: Your message dated "Thu, 05 Jan 1995 15:55:16 -0600"

    To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

    Message-Id: <01HLKJ80AFZ68ZDW0P@INNOSOFT.COM>

> In message <01HLHKVL7ZL68ZDW0P@INNOSOFT.COM>, Ned Freed writes:
> >> > ... and a list of standard ports to shun should probably be added.
> >
> >This leaves the following ports that are clearly either useless or potentially
> >harmful:

> Couldn't this be generalized a little bit? Can't we assume, for
> example, that the HTTP service is _always_ either on port 80, or on
> some port >1024?

> Similarly, gopher is _always_ either on port 79 or on some port >1024.

This sounds like a good idea to me -- simple, effective, and covers future port
allocations cleanly.

> This rules out the gopher: hack to access finger info. I won't loose
> any sleep over that. A finger: URL should probably be deployed, along
> with gateway interim solutions.

Agreed.

Ned

- Next message: Ned Freed: "Re: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg"
- Previous message: Karen R. Sollins: "Consider writing a paper for this..."
- Next in thread: Marc VanHeyningen: "Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]"
- Reply: Marc VanHeyningen: "Re: Shunned ports [was: Predraft of a new URL scheme: mailmsg ]"