While not an overly problematic thing memory and processor-wise for most
"family" sites running on @Home subscriber systems, it does bring up the
problem of linking to outside files such as images. You end up with
some browsers asking for permission to mix secure and non-secure content
and others just outright refusing to display the non-secure items.
"David A. Sinck" wrote:
>
> \_ SMTP quoth Bob Cober on 10/12/2001 14:15 as having spake thusly:
> \_
> \_ Port 80 was blocked for me too, and I no longer have a LAN City. :-(
> \_
> \_ FYI - I am sure everyone already realizes this, but it is VERY easy to
> \_ configure Apache, IIS, Tomcat, or any other web server to use some other
> \_ port than 80. Then your web site could be accessed as www.mysite.com:8797
> \_ (note: that is not a real address).
> \_
> \_ Adding a port number to the url is so simple, it seems to me that blocking
> \_ 80 really doesn't stop anyone from doing anything....
>
> Port, shmort. Change it to 443 and just add an 's' to your protocol. :-)
>
> David
(text/plain)