home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!nigel.msen.com!not-for-mail
- From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
- Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
- Subject: Re: unhappy about overloading finger
- Followup-To: alt.gopher
- Date: 21 Jul 1992 18:59:15 -0400
- Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Lines: 33
- Message-ID: <14i4shINNdbo@nigel.msen.com>
- References: <ggm.711690458@brolga>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
-
- ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
- :
- : I see an increasing amount of stuff being done using finger as a
- : method of distributed information-getting.
-
- finger is a very easy to understand protocol, clinets are cheap and
- ubiquitous, servers equally so. unlike x.500 and other "big" projects
- with real backing you don't need to get special funding to be able
- to afford a finger-based server. so I think it's a thing you'll need
- to deal with.
-
- : I would prefer
- : to see an explicit 'distributed information' protocol to replace finger
- : being used for:
- :
- : email address lookup
- : directory service call
- : generalised information checks
-
- A number of people are using gopher (viz. alt.gopher, wiht a vote for
- comp.infosystems.gopher in progress) as a distributed information
- system. The protocol per se is very simple, and in fact you can
- point a gopher client at a finger-based service and have it work the
- first time.
-
- gopher has had its own share of security pitfalls, mostly regarding
- holes in telnet based gateways, but for a general lookup and information
- scheme it's pretty good.
-
- (followups to alt.gopher, see also boombox.micro.umn.edu:/pub/gopher/
- if you don't get alt groups)
-
- --Ed
-