Message-ID: <44807EA2.3050005@route-add.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:08:34 +0200
From: Alessandro Selli <dhatarattha@route-add.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.2) Gecko/20060405 SeaMonkey/1.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts
References: <20060518150511.18149.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20060601212829.GA3749@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
 <006201c68658$28a93660$220110ac@YTHERIX>
 <20060602164335.GA13333@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
In-Reply-To: <20060602164335.GA13333@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

Benn Newman wrote:
> 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)
>   
  I agree.  Only, you will have to use a non-standard port where the 
SSL-gopher server
will listen to, since there is no IANA-assigned "gophers" port like 
there is a "https" port
(443 tcp).


-- 
Alessandro Selli
Tel: 340.839.73.05
http://alessandro.route-add.net