#fingerhole — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #fingerhole, aggregated by home.social.
-
The Finger Protocol seems to have had an alternative unofficial TCP-port, other than TCP-port 79.
TCP-port 2003
It was used by GNU cfinger.
TCP-port 2003 would not typically require 'root' privileges — in systems that require 'root' privileges for TCP-ports less-than 1024.
#FingerProtocol #Fingerverse #FingerHole #smallNet #smallWeb #smolNet #smolWeb
-
The Finger Protocol seems to have had an alternative unofficial TCP-port, other than TCP-port 79.
TCP-port 2003
It was used by GNU cfinger.
TCP-port 2003 would not typically require 'root' privileges — in systems that require 'root' privileges for TCP-ports less-than 1024.
#FingerProtocol #Fingerverse #FingerHole #smallNet #smallWeb #smolNet #smolWeb
-
The Finger Protocol seems to have had an alternative unofficial TCP-port, other than TCP-port 79.
TCP-port 2003
It was used by GNU cfinger.
TCP-port 2003 would not typically require 'root' privileges — in systems that require 'root' privileges for TCP-ports less-than 1024.
#FingerProtocol #Fingerverse #FingerHole #smallNet #smallWeb #smolNet #smolWeb
-
The Finger Protocol seems to have had an alternative unofficial TCP-port, other than TCP-port 79.
TCP-port 2003
It was used by GNU cfinger.
TCP-port 2003 would not typically require 'root' privileges — in systems that require 'root' privileges for TCP-ports less-than 1024.
#FingerProtocol #Fingerverse #FingerHole #smallNet #smallWeb #smolNet #smolWeb
-
The Finger Protocol seems to have had an alternative unofficial TCP-port, other than TCP-port 79.
TCP-port 2003
It was used by GNU cfinger.
TCP-port 2003 would not typically require 'root' privileges — in systems that require 'root' privileges for TCP-ports less-than 1024.
#FingerProtocol #Fingerverse #FingerHole #smallNet #smallWeb #smolNet #smolWeb
-
Using a DNS SRV record instead of a DNS TXT record —
To make it so you can change the TCP-port and host of a finger-protocol request —
Seems like a reasonable modification to what I was proposing.
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
Using a DNS SRV record instead of a DNS TXT record —
To make it so you can change the TCP-port and host of a finger-protocol request —
Seems like a reasonable modification to what I was proposing.
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
Using a DNS SRV record instead of a DNS TXT record —
To make it so you can change the TCP-port and host of a finger-protocol request —
Seems like a reasonable modification to what I was proposing.
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
Using a DNS SRV record instead of a DNS TXT record —
To make it so you can change the TCP-port and host of a finger-protocol request —
Seems like a reasonable modification to what I was proposing.
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
Using a DNS SRV record instead of a DNS TXT record —
To make it so you can change the TCP-port and host of a finger-protocol request —
Seems like a reasonable modification to what I was proposing.
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
1/
The finger-protocol could make use of DNS TXT records.
You could use it to change the TCP-port connected to for a finger-request.
You could use it to change the host connected to for a finger-request.
This has a lot of potential!
🧵
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
1/
The finger-protocol could make use of DNS TXT records.
You could use it to change the TCP-port connected to for a finger-request.
You could use it to change the host connected to for a finger-request.
This has a lot of potential!
🧵
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
1/
The finger-protocol could make use of DNS TXT records.
You could use it to change the TCP-port connected to for a finger-request.
You could use it to change the host connected to for a finger-request.
This has a lot of potential!
🧵
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
1/
The finger-protocol could make use of DNS TXT records.
You could use it to change the TCP-port connected to for a finger-request.
You could use it to change the host connected to for a finger-request.
This has a lot of potential!
🧵
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
1/
The finger-protocol could make use of DNS TXT records.
You could use it to change the TCP-port connected to for a finger-request.
You could use it to change the host connected to for a finger-request.
This has a lot of potential!
🧵
( #finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse )
-
Some other relevant tags for your thread:
https://fosstodon.org/@orangeacme/109483350342825311
#finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse
-
Some other relevant tags for your thread:
https://fosstodon.org/@orangeacme/109483350342825311
#finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse
-
Some other relevant tags for your thread:
https://fosstodon.org/@orangeacme/109483350342825311
#finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse
-
Some other relevant tags for your thread:
https://fosstodon.org/@orangeacme/109483350342825311
#finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse
-
Some other relevant tags for your thread:
https://fosstodon.org/@orangeacme/109483350342825311
#finger #fingerHole #fingerProtocol #fingerverse
-
#finger has an origin at least going back to 1971.
#IETF #RFC742 was written to document the existing #fingerProtocol , as it was (implicitly) defined by software.
I.e., finger had been around and was evolving AT LEAST 6 years before RFC-742 was published.
-
#finger has an origin at least going back to 1971.
#IETF #RFC742 was written to document the existing #fingerProtocol , as it was (implicitly) defined by software.
I.e., finger had been around and was evolving AT LEAST 6 years before RFC-742 was published.
-
#finger has an origin at least going back to 1971.
#IETF #RFC742 was written to document the existing #fingerProtocol , as it was (implicitly) defined by software.
I.e., finger had been around and was evolving AT LEAST 6 years before RFC-742 was published.
-
#finger has an origin at least going back to 1971.
#IETF #RFC742 was written to document the existing #fingerProtocol , as it was (implicitly) defined by software.
I.e., finger had been around and was evolving AT LEAST 6 years before RFC-742 was published.
-
#finger has an origin at least going back to 1971.
#IETF #RFC742 was written to document the existing #fingerProtocol , as it was (implicitly) defined by software.
I.e., finger had been around and was evolving AT LEAST 6 years before RFC-742 was published.
-
3/
This quotation from the GNU #finger documentation suggests that —
Image support had already (historically) been added to the #fingerProtocol .
And keep in mind that GNU finger is one of the historic finger-protocol clients — and that it was last updated October 15th, 1992. But that the GNU finger code-base is way older than that.
-
3/
This quotation from the GNU #finger documentation suggests that —
Image support had already (historically) been added to the #fingerProtocol .
And keep in mind that GNU finger is one of the historic finger-protocol clients — and that it was last updated October 15th, 1992. But that the GNU finger code-base is way older than that.
-
3/
This quotation from the GNU #finger documentation suggests that —
Image support had already (historically) been added to the #fingerProtocol .
And keep in mind that GNU finger is one of the historic finger-protocol clients — and that it was last updated October 15th, 1992. But that the GNU finger code-base is way older than that.
-
3/
This quotation from the GNU #finger documentation suggests that —
Image support had already (historically) been added to the #fingerProtocol .
And keep in mind that GNU finger is one of the historic finger-protocol clients — and that it was last updated October 15th, 1992. But that the GNU finger code-base is way older than that.
-
3/
This quotation from the GNU #finger documentation suggests that —
Image support had already (historically) been added to the #fingerProtocol .
And keep in mind that GNU finger is one of the historic finger-protocol clients — and that it was last updated October 15th, 1992. But that the GNU finger code-base is way older than that.
-
2/
Quotation continued —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“[…] The conversion of graphic data from one format to another is done through GNU Finger; no site need know where or how such images are stored on any other site to be able to display those images. You should ask your system administrator to find out whether he has chose to include this functionality on your network.”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
2/
Quotation continued —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“[…] The conversion of graphic data from one format to another is done through GNU Finger; no site need know where or how such images are stored on any other site to be able to display those images. You should ask your system administrator to find out whether he has chose to include this functionality on your network.”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
2/
Quotation continued —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“[…] The conversion of graphic data from one format to another is done through GNU Finger; no site need know where or how such images are stored on any other site to be able to display those images. You should ask your system administrator to find out whether he has chose to include this functionality on your network.”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
2/
Quotation continued —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“[…] The conversion of graphic data from one format to another is done through GNU Finger; no site need know where or how such images are stored on any other site to be able to display those images. You should ask your system administrator to find out whether he has chose to include this functionality on your network.”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
2/
Quotation continued —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“[…] The conversion of graphic data from one format to another is done through GNU Finger; no site need know where or how such images are stored on any other site to be able to display those images. You should ask your system administrator to find out whether he has chose to include this functionality on your network.”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
1/
A quotation from the GNU finger documentation —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“An optional and currently unsupported feature is passing of graphic images. This is built on the new protocol. A user at site A (e.g. MIT) may see the picture of a user at site B (e.g. UCSB), by typing a finger request. […]”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
1/
A quotation from the GNU finger documentation —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“An optional and currently unsupported feature is passing of graphic images. This is built on the new protocol. A user at site A (e.g. MIT) may see the picture of a user at site B (e.g. UCSB), by typing a finger request. […]”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
1/
A quotation from the GNU finger documentation —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“An optional and currently unsupported feature is passing of graphic images. This is built on the new protocol. A user at site A (e.g. MIT) may see the picture of a user at site B (e.g. UCSB), by typing a finger request. […]”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
1/
A quotation from the GNU finger documentation —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“An optional and currently unsupported feature is passing of graphic images. This is built on the new protocol. A user at site A (e.g. MIT) may see the picture of a user at site B (e.g. UCSB), by typing a finger request. […]”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
1/
A quotation from the GNU finger documentation —
(GNU #finger is one of the historic #fingerProtocol clients — last updated October 15th, 1992.)
“An optional and currently unsupported feature is passing of graphic images. This is built on the new protocol. A user at site A (e.g. MIT) may see the picture of a user at site B (e.g. UCSB), by typing a finger request. […]”
https://www.gnu.org/software/finger/manual/html_mono/finger.html
-
3/
If a concept of files & directories were added to the #fingerProtocol then — it would need to be attached to the user, not the host.
I.e.,:
"joeblow/a/b/c.txt" + "\r\n""joeblow/a/b/[email protected]" + "\r\n"
Or from the command line:
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]@changelog.ca
-
3/
If a concept of files & directories were added to the #fingerProtocol then — it would need to be attached to the user, not the host.
I.e.,:
"joeblow/a/b/c.txt" + "\r\n""joeblow/a/b/[email protected]" + "\r\n"
Or from the command line:
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]@changelog.ca
-
3/
If a concept of files & directories were added to the #fingerProtocol then — it would need to be attached to the user, not the host.
I.e.,:
"joeblow/a/b/c.txt" + "\r\n""joeblow/a/b/[email protected]" + "\r\n"
Or from the command line:
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]@changelog.ca
-
3/
If a concept of files & directories were added to the #fingerProtocol then — it would need to be attached to the user, not the host.
I.e.,:
"joeblow/a/b/c.txt" + "\r\n""joeblow/a/b/[email protected]" + "\r\n"
Or from the command line:
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]@changelog.ca
-
3/
If a concept of files & directories were added to the #fingerProtocol then — it would need to be attached to the user, not the host.
I.e.,:
"joeblow/a/b/c.txt" + "\r\n""joeblow/a/b/[email protected]" + "\r\n"
Or from the command line:
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]
finger joeblow/a/b/[email protected]@changelog.ca
-
2/
But (unlike #HTTP) with the #fingerProtocol — you can actually make a request on a user.
Ex:
"joeblow" + "\r\n"And:
"[email protected]" + "\r\n"So, what if you wanted to extend the finger-protocol, and add a concept of files & directories‽ —
-
2/
But (unlike #HTTP) with the #fingerProtocol — you can actually make a request on a user.
Ex:
"joeblow" + "\r\n"And:
"[email protected]" + "\r\n"So, what if you wanted to extend the finger-protocol, and add a concept of files & directories‽ —
-
2/
But (unlike #HTTP) with the #fingerProtocol — you can actually make a request on a user.
Ex:
"joeblow" + "\r\n"And:
"[email protected]" + "\r\n"So, what if you wanted to extend the finger-protocol, and add a concept of files & directories‽ —
-
2/
But (unlike #HTTP) with the #fingerProtocol — you can actually make a request on a user.
Ex:
"joeblow" + "\r\n"And:
"[email protected]" + "\r\n"So, what if you wanted to extend the finger-protocol, and add a concept of files & directories‽ —
-
2/
But (unlike #HTTP) with the #fingerProtocol — you can actually make a request on a user.
Ex:
"joeblow" + "\r\n"And:
"[email protected]" + "\r\n"So, what if you wanted to extend the finger-protocol, and add a concept of files & directories‽ —
-
1/
With #HTTP files & directories are part of the host (and not a user).
Ex:
http.//[email protected]/a/b/c.txt(For the path "/a/b/c.txt")
Users exist in HTTP, but they are more for authentication; rather a target for requests.
(In HTTP you cannot make a request on the user with no path, file, or directory.)
And yes, there a tidle paths. But the HTTP protocol doesn't actually understand them as users — it is just a convention.
-
1/
With #HTTP files & directories are part of the host (and not a user).
Ex:
http.//[email protected]/a/b/c.txt(For the path "/a/b/c.txt")
Users exist in HTTP, but they are more for authentication; rather a target for requests.
(In HTTP you cannot make a request on the user with no path, file, or directory.)
And yes, there a tidle paths. But the HTTP protocol doesn't actually understand them as users — it is just a convention.
-
1/
With #HTTP files & directories are part of the host (and not a user).
Ex:
http.//[email protected]/a/b/c.txt(For the path "/a/b/c.txt")
Users exist in HTTP, but they are more for authentication; rather a target for requests.
(In HTTP you cannot make a request on the user with no path, file, or directory.)
And yes, there a tidle paths. But the HTTP protocol doesn't actually understand them as users — it is just a convention.
-
1/
With #HTTP files & directories are part of the host (and not a user).
Ex:
http.//[email protected]/a/b/c.txt(For the path "/a/b/c.txt")
Users exist in HTTP, but they are more for authentication; rather a target for requests.
(In HTTP you cannot make a request on the user with no path, file, or directory.)
And yes, there a tidle paths. But the HTTP protocol doesn't actually understand them as users — it is just a convention.
-
1/
With #HTTP files & directories are part of the host (and not a user).
Ex:
http.//[email protected]/a/b/c.txt(For the path "/a/b/c.txt")
Users exist in HTTP, but they are more for authentication; rather a target for requests.
(In HTTP you cannot make a request on the user with no path, file, or directory.)
And yes, there a tidle paths. But the HTTP protocol doesn't actually understand them as users — it is just a convention.