On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
> > For traceroute, I want to send a series of TCP SYN packets to
> > www.ufp.org, port 80 with increasing TTL values. Perhaps this
>
> No, it doesn't.
> http://www.ufp.org/ does NOT mean TCP port 80.
> www.ufp.org:80 means port 80, I don't know of any simple common way to
> say TCP.
>
> http://www.ufp.org/ means the host 'www.ufp.org' using the protocol
> 'http' with the TCP port 80 implicity as a result of the 'http'.
> Traceroute is not going to use HTTP. Ping is not going to use HTTP.
> Rpcinfo is not going to use HTTP. A mail client is not going to use
> HTTP (this one is perhaps debatable, but I'm sure as hell not going
> there).
Agreed. I thought that it would be funny to carry this to an
absurd conclusion, but I guess some people would rather just
take the opportunity to assume ignorance in others.
> If you want to take a URI passed to 'ping', say, and parse out a
> hostname, that's one thing which I'm sure we could have endless
> disagreement about. But doing that is *NOT* parsing it as a URI.
Well, since humor doesn't work, I will be blunt. I think that
the utilities and agents work just fine, thank-you-very-much.
I think that adding URI handling to ping, traceroute, ftp, mail,
etc. is a waste of time. To me, "mailto:"; suggests a TCP connection
to port 25, and it is (at best) nuissance information when I want
to do a ping or traceroute. The same with "http:".
-Richard
-------------------------------------------
Richard Hodges | Matriplex, inc.
Product Manager | 769 Basque Way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Carson City, NV 89706
775-886-6477 | www.matriplex.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
