[gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
I am so glad that my probing question about Ports has generated so much detailed reasoning and debate. This is just the kind of thoughtful argument that I was hoping for, as it will be very useful for future reference to everyone (newbies and advanced alike) when this months batch of complete.org email goes into the Gopher archive. Too much about why things are done in Gopher has gone un-documented for too long.
BTW, my teams personal feelings about Ports are that the primary Gopher gateway (Gopherhole) into an individual domain (IP address) should be on Port 70; if for no other reason than any Client or Browser can view the "Home Page" and read a posted "further instructions" document from the Administrator. As for any other services... Admins perogative.
Chris <chris@hal3000.cx> wrote:
Gee Aaron you said it with alot less words :)
Chris
P.S. thanks for your responses on bugzilla, they along with Jon's were very well put.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:56:35 -0500
"Aaron J. Angel" wrote:
> JumpJet Mailbox wrote:
> > I am however wondering why the Port issue is such a hot spot?
>
> The simple answer is you can't run multiple Gopher servers on the same
> port and IP address. Additionally, there are other services with which
> Gopher clients can interact that do not run on port 70. WHOIS and
> Finger come immediately to mind.
>
> > Still, there are indeed several advantages to having software stick
> > to specific Ports.
>
> Agreed; which is why Mozilla can't finger or whois.
>
> > Another advantage of having certain Protocals stick to a single (or
> > at least a very limited range) of Ports is the ease of which a Client
> > / Browser can detect a Server. This is why there are millions of
> > HTTP web pages operating on Port 80 (or Port 8080) rather than on
> > Port "X". Non-technical persons who surf the Web, typically don't
> > want to be constantly appending Port numbers to the end of an IP
> > address.
>
> That's what links (or Gopher menus) are for. The main content is
> available from the main port. Port 8080 is used not because it is a
> "standard", but because it is easy to remember. Users must always type
> these non-standard ports into the address field, or otherwise link to it
> from somewhere else.
>
> > With only about 200 or so Internet Gopher Servers worldwide (and only
> > about a dozen still actively updated), why is using Port 70 such a
> > hardship??? Is it because of a imperative need to run Dual Protocol
> > servers?
>
> Multiple Gopher servers on the same host (there's no such thing as
> Gopher VHost); perhaps security constraints (many ISPs block specific
> ports) prevents the Gopher operator from assuming root priviledges, or
> simply doesn't want to.
>
> > It is indeed unfortunate that many Browsers that understand
> > Gopherspace can not recognize Gopher on a Port other than 70. This
> > is due primarily to lazyness on the part of the software programmer
>
> With Mozilla (Firefox), it was actually the opposite. The developers
> actively block Gopher requests to ports other than 70 or rewrite URLs
> without notifying the user.
>
> > With such a limited selection of Clients / Browsers able to choose a
> > Port other than 70, why not just stick with Port 70??
>
> Sometimes its not a choice.
>
> > Should a unique Server have to operate on a different Port, the
> > Server Administrator should just assume that his Server will be of
> > limited accessability as his patrons must INTENTIONALLY use one of
> > the very few Clients / Browsers that can operatate on a Port other
> > than 70
>
> The server operator shouldn't care about the infrastructure of its
> clients' networks. That's up to the client. (-:
>
> > So, in conclusion; Why is operating a Gopher Server on JUST Port 70
> > such a burden?
>
> See up.
>
> --
> Aaron J. Angel. You know, That One Guy!
> Visit me on the web at http://www.aaronjangel.us/.
>
>
>
--
Join FSF as an Associate Member at:
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Reply to: