I like 9481, because it is 1984 scrambled ;) On 2/17/06, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What port number should we use for FCPv2? > > I propose 9481. It does not seem to be used. > > We can't use 8481, because we already use it for a different protocol > (FCPv1). Well, we could... but it'd be nice if we made it easy for > people to run both at once. It might be the best long-term option > though. > > We can't use 8482, because Entropy uses it. > > 8483 doesn't seem to be used but is ugly. > > 8484 is used (HTTPS web calendaring or proxies or something?) > > 8488 is used. (KiLo trojan) > > 9491 and 9481 seem to be clear. > > Any comments? For now I'm going with 8483. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFD9mBrHzsuOmVUoi0RAl/RAKCsR5S+uObZsb32Ns7/QNpfPkAIzwCgmjl0 > p5VAQ/Mnhn2UBVe7NFqrvXw= > =A1+Q > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > >
-- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
