rra at stanford.edu
Sat Sep 18 17:08:27 UTC 1999
greg andruk <meowing at banet.net> writes:
> Just 119 and >1024 seems a bit restrictive to hard code. Might be good
> to make the allowed port something to specify in configure, or at least
> allow the typical alternatives like 433 and 120.
Yup. Already planning on adding an option to configure. If there are
particular common alternatives that people can agree on, I'll add that
too, but every person who's mentioned it so far has listed a different
The main reason for being so fascist is to avoid the various r* command
exploits possible by abusing privileged ports.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers