From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre@floodgap.com>
Message-Id: <200403151954.LAA18226@floodgap.com>
Subject: [gopher] Re: "groxies"
In-Reply-To: <20040315201653.GB66311@wumpus-cave.net> from Timm Murray at "Mar
 15, 4 02:16:53 pm"
To: gopher@complete.org
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:54:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

> > This would work fine for Gopher+ servers, but non-Gopher+ servers would
> > probably see the groxy-host\tport portion as a request (Bucktooth, for
> > example, would definitely get confused).

> No, because this is a request being specifically sent to a proxy, not a 
> server.  Clients will need to know when they're sending the data to a 
> proxy, but the server should never see data come in this form.

True, fair enough. If no one else has any other concerns over this method
of implementing a groxy, I'll throw together a proof-of-concept.

-- 
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
 Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I'm still right. -------