[miles@lsi.nec.co.jp: Re: alternate CVS server ports?]

[miles@lsi.nec.co.jp: Re: alternate CVS server ports?]

[Christopher Faylor]

I have no interest in adding another server to sourceware.  It bothers
me a little that people are asking us to help them circumvent firewalls.
What are the firewalls there for?  If the port is blocked and it is
needed for someone to do a job then shouldn't it be relatively simple to
get it unblocked?  Otherwise, if company policy is to block that port
then why should we help by winking and sending the data over an unblocked
port?

However, before I said "no", I thought I'd forward this on.  

cgf

----- Forwarded message from Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> -----

From: Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>
To: sourcemaster@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: alternate CVS server ports?
Date: 16 Dec 2002 17:41:16 +0900
Reply-To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Blat: Foop
In-Reply-To: <buofztfackf.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>

Hi,

Could you please reply to my earlier email?  Thanks.

Here it is:

Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to use the anonymous CVS service on sources.redhat.com (for,
> e.g., binutils), but am behind a firewall that only allows http and
> https traffic.
> 
> For other CVS servers (subversions.gnu.org, cvs.uclinux.org), I've
> managed to work around this by getting the server maintainers to have
> the CVS listen on port 443 (https).  Then I use a CVS client with an
> appropriate proxy-tunneling patch. 
> 
> Do you think you could do the same thing (have the CVS server listen on
> port 443) on sources.redhat.com?

-Miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, 
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?

----- End forwarded message -----