Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:35:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from dns2.eurnetcity.net ([80.68.196.9]) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cm5h1-0008HB-0R for gopher@complete.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:35:08 -0600 Received: from brillante.route-add.net (postfix@brillante.route-add.net [80.68.194.26] (may be forged)) by dns2.EurNetCity.NET (8.11.6p2-20030924/8.11.6) with SMTP id j057Onm16911 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:24:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (marana [192.168.1.4]) by brillante.route-add.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9F21031 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:34:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <41DB988E.6020206@route-add.net> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:34:38 +0100 From: Alessandro Selli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050104 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: item types of unusual interest References: <200501050538.VAA14276@floodgap.com> In-Reply-To: <200501050538.VAA14276@floodgap.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EurNetCity-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EurNetCity-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: dhatarattha@route-add.net X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0) X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:35:08 -0600 X-archive-position: 994 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: dhatarattha@route-add.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: Gopher X-List-ID: Gopher List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: gopher Cameron Kaiser wrote: > This is interesting. Note particularly the 'w' item type. I think these are > just assignments Netscape pulled out of their rear, unless someone knows > different? Compared to RFC-1436 it also lacks the "+" itemtype, the "redundant server" item. How is the "w" itemtype supposed to be used? Would this hFloodgap.com (Web pages) URL:http://www.floodgap.com/ appear as: wFloodgap.com (Web pages) http://www.floodgap.com/ ? I cannot find the "h" itemtype defined in RFC-1436, will you please shed some light about it? > Pardon the web URL ;) How tasteless! :-) -- Alessandro Selli Tel: 340.839.73.05 http://alessandro.route-add.net