[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
RE: OT: (ish) Web publishing question
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: OT: (ish) Web publishing question
- From: "Paul Gordon" <paul_gordon@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 20:38:53 +0000
- Delivered-to: mailing list ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
a single port 80 connection would be nice, but is it *really* that
important? - if you control the firewall policy, you can open those ports
(to http only of course). For me, the important part was not *having* to
remember a whole bunch of non-standard port numbers for http, but rather
being able to use a friendly URL with "/server1" rather than
":84".
Paul G.
>From: "Ian Lowe" <ian@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [ukha_d] OT: (ish) Web publishing question
>Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:14:06 -0000
>
>but this won't work..
>
>The server:port is just a nicer way of having the different ports
>accesible..
>you still need all of the ports open an directed through your firewall.
>
>I have also been looking for a solution to having lost of web
"servers"
>(Homeseer, IIS, Apache) accesibl from the outside world via a single
>port:80
>connection.
>
>not found one yet. :(
>
_________________________________________________________________
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|