Re: request for a new URL scheme
Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com> Thu, 11 April 1996 02:27 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04186;
10 Apr 96 22:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04181;
10 Apr 96 22:27 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20508;
10 Apr 96 22:27 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id
WAA28080 for uri-out; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:00:53 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by
services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA28074 for
<uri@services.bunyip.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:00:36 -0400
Received: from alpha.Xerox.COM by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA29226 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com);
Wed, 10 Apr 96 21:56:37 -0400
Received: from golden.parc.xerox.com ([13.1.100.139]) by alpha.xerox.com with
SMTP id <16093(12)>; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:54:56 PDT
Received: by golden.parc.xerox.com id <2763>; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:54:43 -0700
To: hsoi@tamu.edu
Cc: rsalz@osf.org, uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: "John C. Daub"'s message of Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:35:02 -0700
<Pine.SOL.3.92.960410143008.2603A-100000@tam2000.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: request for a new URL scheme
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Fake-Sender: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Message-Id: <96Apr10.185443pdt.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:54:33 PDT
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
> I would rather see browers that allowed telnet-style helper apps to > be specified on a per-port basis. Now that I understand what this means, I don't think it is very useful, but it's also easy to do. Not useful: Lately, I've had to telnet to hosts that use random port numbers to avoid the "ping every port 23 in the word and then try to log in" hackers. Apparently this is a common approach for bastion hosts and does seem to slow down the site crackers. But I've also seen muds that run mud service on one port, HTTP on another, POP3 on another, NTTP on another, and they're all in the >256 range. Since port number selection is random, something that selects one kind of app for port 8000 and another for port 8888 doesn't seem to be very useful (to me.) Easy: Write a program called 'metatelnet' and have it call 'telnet' for one port range, 'mudclient' for another, etc. I mean, you can just have your generic telnet launch other apps.
- request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Rich Salz
- Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request fo… Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Reed Wade
- Re: request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: reques… ZB Lucas