💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › u › winduptoy › 1911 captured on 2023-11-04 at 17:02:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I also think SRV records could be used for multi-hosting in a sane way. If I have an account on a server with many other users and I don't have root access, then I'm essentially forced to use a non-default port for any server process I want to run. If I run a server for a protocol that requires SRV records to be defined, then many users could run their own processes on arbitrary ports, each with their own domain CNAMEs and SRVs with no problem.
2023-06-13 · 5 months ago
@winduptoy good point. I guess what I mean is no SRV record is necessary if one wants to use the default port. It shouldn’t really be an optional feature for clients though, that would be confusing.
SRV records — Any thoughts on making SRV records part of the spec? I think it adds a lot of flexibility for the server operator without much cost and can be pretty beneficial when your ISP does something boneheaded like block port 1958.
💬 winduptoy · 7 comments · 1 like · 2023-06-03 · 5 months ago