Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:43:35 -0500
From: Benn Newman <newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts
Message-ID: <20060602164335.GA13333@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
References: <20060518150511.18149.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20060601212829.GA3749@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
 <006201c68658$28a93660$220110ac@YTHERIX>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <006201c68658$28a93660$220110ac@YTHERIX>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 11:21:01AM -0400, Trevor wrote:
> this intrigues me.
> 
> (sorry i don't look familiar. been lurking the last couple of years.)
> 
> one downfall, i feel, with gopher is it is clear text. has anyone thought 
> about, besides me, an sGopher protocol? i think gopher would get more 
> mainstream use if it had security built into it. many companies refuse to 
> use anything that sends clear text over a wire. just a thought.
Gopher over SSL/TLS (from my understanding) is easy and already possible.
You can use something like stunnel (on the server) and socat (on the client)
if you (the client) do not mind setting up a new socat for each server.
It's really only a matter of changing the client.
--
Benn Newman
-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkSAarcACgkQFE65lPR8xrFRZQCfVlQ5P8ppZrwYs/ZF5Y4UtWix
kI0An2MN8+EwmrK1zA5xvE9pz/Pfi6uD
=hCXF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----