Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:42:41 -0500
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Cc: rcooley@myrealbox.com
Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher+ Suggestion
Message-ID: <20020722134241.GM1410@complete.org>
References: <20020722020812.GD1410@complete.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207220829280.21067-100000@pinkstuff.transformers.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207220829280.21067-100000@pinkstuff.transformers.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:31:54AM +0100, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> 
> A problem fairly specific to Gopher is that many gopher clients
> (especially ones in web browsers) don't support connections to ports other
> than 70, because Gopher is _so_ flexible that it's possible to write

I haven't ever seen this.  Perhaps in Konqueror?  But then it doesn't
support Gopher well anyway.  Maybe IE?  I seem to recall Cameron mentioning
IE problems.

> pretty much any simple instruction in any protocol as a Gopher request,
> which creates a security problem.

I'm not quite sure where the security problem is here.

-- 
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>    GPG: 0x8A1D9A1F    www.complete.org