Re: The X.400 port in "assigned numbers"

Article View: comp.protocols.iso.x400

Article #566

Back to comp.protocols.iso.x400 Previous Next

#566

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 1990 21:01

7 lines
771 bytes

I know that at least two other implementations,
- EAN
- M.PLUS
have the same problem, that is, they cannot be started by a daemon at
port 102.
What is required to have the 103 port reassigned for this function
(X.400 over RFC1006)?

Technical Details

Message-ID: <2188*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway

References: <9012072220.AA05182@bel.isi.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: The X.400 port in "assigned numbers"
Message-ID: <2188*harald.alvestrand@elab-runit.sintef.no>
Date: 10 Dec 90 21:01:03 GMT
References: <9012072220.AA05182@bel.isi.edu>
Lines: 7
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <901210144955*Allan.Cargille@pilot.cs.wisc.edu>

Reply to Parent Message