Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:20:13 -0500 (EST) Return-Path: Delivered-To: gopher@complete.org Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (unknown [212.113.174.249]) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403C13B8AB for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([213.22.99.119]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617); Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:16:51 +0000 Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher wishlist From: Luis Oliveira To: gopher@complete.org In-Reply-To: <3C682904.BF4BE07D@sympatico.ca> References: <3C682904.BF4BE07D@sympatico.ca> Content-type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.1 Date: 11 Feb 2002 21:24:36 +0000 Message-Id: <1013462677.15086.89.camel@home> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Feb 2002 21:16:51.0753 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C7E0990:01C1B341] X-archive-position: 425 X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: luismbo@netcabo.pt Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Listar version 1.0.0 X-List-ID: Gopher List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: gopher On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 20:26, Ralph Furmaniak wrote: > > Do we really have to stick to the gopher+ specs? There are some things > that could be done differently, or new features added to the protocol. > We have practically all the maintainers of maintained gopher progs in > this group so why can't we tinker with the protocol a bit? If people > have some ideas of things they would like to see in gopher, we can try > to put these together. I agree. I'm very new to gopher and I kind of like it. I think that it should be heavily improved now while there aren't many gopher servers. -- Luis Oliveira luismbo@netcabo.pt