Spruell, Darren-Perot wrote:
Maybe a better-designed application wouldn't have to make use of such a clusterbag of ports in the first place?
The ports do not belong to a single application. I operate a gateway and want to give high priority to legitimate protocols and low priority to everything else. At the moment I have chosen this long list of "legitimate" ports:
21 (ftp, using ftp-proxy, needs special care), 22 (ssh), 25 (smtp), 53 (dns, tcp+udp), 80 (http), 110 (pop3), 119 (nntp), 123 (ntp, tcp+udp), 143 (imap2), 220 (imap3), 443 (https), 563 (nntps), 993 (imaps), 995 (pop3s), 1194 (openvpn, tcp+udp), 1863 (msn messenger im), 3128 (wwwproxy), 5050 (yahoo im), 5190 (icq im), 5222 (jabber im), 6667 (irc), 7000 (irc ssl).
The list only serves to emphasize that I need to match a high number of ports :)
To Daniel Quellet: Sorry for disturbing the topic of your thread. /Martin
