[gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one

[JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry Chris, I wasn't alluding to "Local Veronica" (or V-2, or even Jughead), 
all of which are excellent tools.  I should have been more clear in that I was 
refering to the no longer available non-local Gopherspace-wide Veronica, such 
as what was once run on the now defunct UMN Gopher.  When I said "dead", I 
meant that the software is not running on Gopherspace, and therefore there was 
no need to make accomodations for it (and therefore as well, should it be 
brought back again, it also doesn't have to meet any pre-existing parameters).
   
  ==========
   
  I am however wondering why the Port issue is such a hot spot?  Yes, I do 
understand that in regards to Ports, NONE of the Ports should be "off limits".  
If I want to run my HTTP server on Port 21 (the common FTP Port) instead of 
Port 80 (the common HTTP Port), my software should not prevent me.  
   
  Still, there are indeed several advantages to having software stick to 
specific Ports.  The biggest advantage is the ease in configuring FireWalls.  
By restricting the number of Ports open to the world (and it always mystified 
me why they made so many Ports anyways, 512, or even as little as 256, whould 
have probably been more than sufficient based on real-life Port useage 
statistics) Network Administrators can more easily detect and prevent abuse of 
their Network.  
   
  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.
   
  The standardization of Port numbers has been felt so important in fact, that 
when you speak of a Protocol, you typically assume a specific Port (HTTP = 80, 
FTP = 21, SMTP = 25, DNS = 53, etceteras).  IANA even maintains a list of what 
they call "Well Known Port Numbers" : 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers 
   
  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?  (GN will 
let you serve the same content on two different Ports simultainiously, Port 70 
and 80).  
  Is it because a Legacy Server is already operating on a non-standard Port?  
(Contact the Servers Administrator and ask them to switch it onto Port 70).  
   
  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 (i.e., many Browsers such as 
older versions of Internet Explorer).  However, even many of the older 
dedicated Gopher Clients could only view Gopher on Port 70 (test this for 
yourself by downloading and trying some of these older clients: 
gopher://home.jumpjet.info/11\Begin_Here\Clients ).  
   
  With such a limited selection of Clients / Browsers able to choose a Port 
other than 70, why not just stick with Port 70??  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 (not that undue a burden, as persons operating, for 
example, a FTP server on a Port other than 21 also face the same issue in 
regards to limited Client choices for their patrons).  
   
  So, in conclusion; Why is operating a Gopher Server on JUST Port 70 such a 
burden?
   
  Yes, continue to hound Client / Browser software programmers to allow their 
software to operate on more than one Port (if only because the software SHOULD 
allow this flexability); but at the same time operate our handful of Internet 
Gopher Servers on just Port 70.  
   
  
Chris <chris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
Actually Veronica is not dead, it's alive and well, right on the port it was 
intended to be on.
It's port is quite appropriate for any millenium, any web browser which can't 
handle ports is frankly past broken. How Moz acts, with it redirecting the 
client to a different site while keeping the port looking as if it's where it 
should be is quite unacceptable.
Historically speaking it is un-questionably proper as it is.
For the new millenium, why would you not allow the ports be used as they always 
had?
Veronica-2 is very nice, and is a valid tool, just as is Veronica.
Chris
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
JumpJet Mailbox wrote:

> I disagree with your reasoning about port 2347. Veronica is DEAD. I feel that 
> doesn't matter what Veronica once did or did not do. A revived Veronica, 
> Veronica-2, or any other future Veronica version should now run on whatever 
> port is the MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM. 
> 
> In the 10 or so years that there has not been a Veronica, the world has moved 
> on. We now know what works best, and what should have been done differently. 
> Here is a unique opportunity to do it correctly, and fix our mistakes (if 
> mistakes they indeed were). If it happens to be port 2347, great. If its port 
> 70, thats great too. If its some other port entirely, thats Ok as well. What 
> is most important is that the port chosen is THE BEST PORT FOR THE JOB. 
> 
> V-2 works great for me on its current port 70. I know that much of the 
> software currently available (be it a modern Web Browser, or ancient legacy 
> Gopher Client) has trouble if Gopher is not on Port 70. Perhaps port 70 IS 
> the best port for a Veronica??? 
> 
> Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > As for having the search engines stick to port 70.
> > First I disagree, thats not a gopher problem its a moz problem .
> 
> I agree with this also. :2347 was always the standard Veronica port. In fact,
> it's non-standard of *me* to run V-2 on the regular port and I've even been
> mulling over putting a mirror onto port 2347.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Join FSF as an Associate Member at:





       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.