The reality is that it is sometimes easier getting blood out
of a lemon, than getting your IT department to open up a port,
especially when they feel that security is everything.
I would agree that overloading of ports is not always a good
thing, but sometimes its the only solution.
Andre
On 22-May-06, at 11:09 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
André-John Mas wrote:
Thanks, this is great news. This will save me from trying to further
reverse engineer what is currently being done, and also allow me to
use my Mac from behind my corporate firewall with my Google Talk
address :)
Some people think that overloading all kinds of traffic over the ports
assigned to HTTP and HTTPS is not a good thing. Ports are assigned
for a
reason. If you want to access XMPP services from behind a firewall,
open
up port 5222 (5223 is a legacy port used for SSL-only connections but
that is no longer needed since we can seamlessly upgrade port 5222 to
TLS). However, serving up the HTTP binding (see JEP-0124) on port
80 or
port 443 seems perfectly fine to me.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEcdQ6NF1RSzyt3NURAnqwAJ9PnDYBq/CXi5w222211T3eNJ39QACff5TU
Yj0fCLPybB6qSdI9hKPI+nw=
=Kdzd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
