Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:53:52 -0400 | From | Jordan Mendelson <> | Subject | Re: khttpd |
| |
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > Followup to: <19990610132916.21924.qmail@convergence.de> > By author: felix@convergence.de > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > In local.linux-kernel, you wrote: > > > Why not give khttpd a devoted port? Why go to all these pains to dissect > > > keep-alive connections and all that, when we can do <IMG > > > SRC="http://my.server.net:81/banner.gif">? Is that just too easy for > > > everyone? Is it because the benchmarks we were talking about would be able > > > to use something like that? > > > > Recent squid versions disallow port 81 through the proxy, so people will > > see broken images. > > > > What about the ports 8000 and 8080, both of which are frequently used > for http? (If Squid blocks them all, I would consider that a bug in > Squid.)
By default, Squid blocks everything but 80, 21, 443, 563, 70, 210 and 1025-65535... but then again, by default squid blocks connections from all hosts to force you to change the configuration defaults :)
Actually, Squid can be used to automatically rewrite URL's to forward to khttpd for connections quite easily when using Squid as a web accelerator.
Jordan
-- Jordan Mendelson : http://jordy.wserv.com Web Services, Inc. : http://www.wserv.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |