[gopher] Re: [Fwd: [Bug 285003] Mozilla ignores port number on Gopher URI]
Thanks Alessandro,
I will have to register as a user to vote it seems.
I will have more time in a couple days. A quick thought
though...if your going to support a protocol wouldn't
it make sense to support it fully ... else not.
I guess in my eyes its more cut and dried...
It either works or its broken.
I didn't understand the one concept of that gopher
is not used much so why fix it.
Another idea before I head to work.
Now all the browsers spun off of it are also broke.
This would be a good teaching tool as an example
for students about implications of leaving broken/
bad code in an application. I think Moz would have
been better off to not support gopher at all, perhaps
they could have an external application (like lynx)
handle gopher for them ;)
Later heading to work...
Chris
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:05:50 +0100
Alessandro Selli <dhatarattha@route-add.net> wrote:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71916
>
> Oh well, it was quite well discussed before, three years ago!
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158888
>
> Quite an interesting discussion, too. Sound like an agreement was found
> in order to fix the "problem". But it seems they didi not implement it.
>
> The final comment was:
>
> > ------- Additional Comment #13 From Bradley Baetz 2003-06-10 02:08
> > PST [reply] -------
> >
> >mitch: see my comment #7. We now protect against this better and more
> > generally,
> >and we should be abel to remove the hack which was added just before
> > the
> >milestone freeze a couple of years ago.
>
> Comment #7 was:
>
> > ------- Additional Comment #7 From Bradley Baetz 2002-08-10 01:40 PST
> > [reply] -------
> >
> >Mitch - we added the blocked ports list, but that was _after_ bug 71916
> >was
> >fixed (severel hours before the milestone freeze). I'm proposing to
> > back out the
> >fix for bug 71916 on the grounds that the blocked ports list now
> > prtocets
> >against that problem.
>
> So, weren't they supposed to rely on the blocked ports list, instead
> of limiting Gopher to port 70?
> I also read:
>
> > ------- Additional Comment #4 From Roland Mainz 2003-03-20 09:47 PST
> > [reply] -------
> >
> >Peter Tynan wrote:
> >> I for one would really like to see Gopher support fixed
> >
> >Then _VOTE_ for this bug
> >(http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votes.cgi?action=show_user&bug_id=194220).
> >And get
> >all your friend, enemies, etc. to vote for it, too (but: usually
> > mozilla.org
> >people don't care about bugzilla votes except you break the "50 votes"
> > barrier
> >(100 are better)) ... :)
>
> Well, votes are indeed lacking!
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Bug 285003] Mozilla ignores port number on Gopher URI
> Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:57:13 -0800
> From: bugzilla-daemon@mozilla.org
> To: dhatarattha@route-add.net
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285003
>
>
> ostgote@gmx.net changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |ostgote@gmx.net
>
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From ostgote@gmx.net 2005-03-07 00:57 PST
> -------
> I guess this is because of Bug 71916 (only prot 70 is allowed). So this
> seems a
> duplicate of Bug 158888 to me.
>
> See also Bug 194220.
>
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
>
>
> --
> Alessandro Selli
> Tel: 340.839.73.05
> http://alessandro.route-add.net
>
>
>
--
Join FSF as an Associate Member at:
<URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014>
Reply to: