From: "Andrew Mahan" <mahanam@comcast.net>
To: <gopher@complete.org>
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:37:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
thread-index: AcaGcFlXwRR9Lv0dQYaY3EhcIuL5NQAcCGMw
In-Reply-To: <44807EA2.3050005@route-add.net>
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

or SSH-2?  Kinda like SFTP works

~Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: gopher-bounce@complete.org [mailto:gopher-bounce@complete.org] On
Behalf Of Alessandro Selli
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:09 AM
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts

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