Re: khttpd
Jordan Mendelson (jordy@wserv.com)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:53:52 -0400
"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/