On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 03:20:09AM -0400, LeaveMeHigh at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/28/00 12:09:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > md98-osa at nada.kth.se writes: > > > The more nodes that operate on the same port, the easier it is for network > > operators to block or seriously impede Freenet access. It should be > > running on any port, sub 1024 if possible, and even ports used by other > > common applications if they are not present (80, 23, 25, 20, 21). > > < 1024 requires root access, doesn't it? Perhaps this should be a question > to the user during install? If you run on 80, and the person later wants to > install a webserver...
Obviously I didn't mean that Freenet should occupy anybody's ports without knowing it. Less the 1024 does require root access (on Unix machines, in Windows anybdoy can have anything, and not in NT by default (AFAIK)). > > Could somebody have a look at the install scripts and make the default > > port in the .freenetrc a random number with each install? (It has to be > > per install, not per run basis, of course). > > Asking the user for a port number might be too much, but just randomly > picking one and hoping it works (it might work at that moment) you have to be > careful with. Maybe freenet could do this itself the first time it runs? If > we're using a Properties object, you can use store(OutputStream, String) and > update the file automatically. What's the difference between hoping a random number (excluding known services) works and hoping that 19114 works? > > -lmh > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
