[gopher] Re: [Fwd: [Bug 285003] Mozilla ignores port number on Gopher URI]

[Chris <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: dhatarattha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285003
> 
> 
> ostgote@xxxxxxx changed:
> 
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                   CC|                            |ostgote@xxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From ostgote@xxxxxxx  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>