285003 - ignores port number on Gopher URI

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 158888

(Core :: Networking, defect)

Description

[Alessandro Selli]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105

Pointing the Big Lizard to gopher://hal3000.cx:7070 produces the same result
than pointing it to gopher://hal3000.cx.  The server actually runs two gopher
daemons that serve two different contents on those ports.  Netscape 4.8 produces
the right oputput.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Enter gopher://hal3000.cx into address bar.
2. Enter gopher://hal3000.cx:7070 into address bar. The same page is shown. They
should differ.


Actual Results:  
Noticed Mozilla would serve the same page, the one served by the server
answering connections on hal3000.cx:70.

Expected Results:  
Mozilla should have contacted hal3000.cx on port 7070 so that it would have
gotten a different page.

Comment 1

[OstGote!]

I guess this is because of Bug 71916 (only prot 70 is allowed). So this seems a
duplicate of Bug 158888 to me.

See also Bug 194220.

Comment 2

[Alessandro Selli]

(In reply to comment #1)
> I guess this is because of Bug 71916 (only prot 70 is allowed). So this seems a
> duplicate of Bug 158888 to me.
> 
> See also Bug 194220.

  Agree.  On the discussion about bug #158888, I read as the final comment:

> ------- Additional Comment #13 From Bradley Baetz  2003-06-10 02:08 PST
>  [reply] -------
>
>mitch: see my comment #7. We now protect against this better and more
> generally,
>and we should be abel to remove the hack which was added just before the
>milestone freeze a couple of years ago.

  Comment #7 reads as follows:

> ------- Additional Comment #7 From Bradley Baetz  2002-08-10 01:40 PST
>  [reply] -------
>
>Mitch - we added the blocked ports list, but that was _after_ bug 71916 was
>fixed (severel hours before the milestone freeze). I'm proposing to back out
> the
>fix for bug 71916 on the grounds that the blocked ports list now prtocets
>against that problem.

  Bub #158888 is still marked as "Status: NEW".
Wasn't agreement reached about the solution to "remove the hack"?
Isn't the blocked ports solution, instead of the "gopher only on port 70",
the one that met the most consensus?

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 158888 ***

Comment 4

[benc]

V/dupe.