[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Uploaded junkbuster 2.0-1 (source i386) to master



	Why not use port 81?  I don't know if this port has been defined
or standardized yet, but it would seem logical that proxies like
junkbuster should use it by default.

	Or maybe all proxies should be given a certain port range as
debian policy.


						Alex

On 19 May 1998, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> > junkbuster (2.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >   * default port set to 8080 as to not conflict with NAS
> >   * maintainer release
> 
> Yes, I realize that this has been discussed recently.  I just wanted to
> put in my two cents.
> 
> I haven't quite gotten around to evaluating junkbuster yet.  I just
> haven't had time.  But with a default port of 8080 I'll probably delay
> it longer.  That's where I run my test apache servers.  Admittedly, I
> could tell probably tell junkbuster to use a different port but it won't 
> be as easy.  8000 and 8080 aren't well-known ports in the standards
> sense but many people do use them for web servers...
> 
> Darren


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: