Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:57:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from nakhbi.aaronjangel.us ([216.154.216.13]) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtps (with TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (No TLS peer certificate) (Exim 4.63) id 1Hcs7D-0005Wo-DQ for gopher@complete.org; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:57:12 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.125] (adsl-070-145-031-187.sip.owb.bellsouth.net [70.145.31.187]) (authenticated bits=0) by nakhbi.aaronjangel.us (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l3ENF7s0026061 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:15:07 -0400 Message-ID: <46215FD8.9070206@aaronjangel.us> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:12:24 -0500 From: "Aaron J. Angel" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one References: <701335.48225.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <701335.48225.qm@web35508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0): none X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:57:12 -0500 X-archive-position: 1545 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: thatoneguy@aaronjangel.us 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 JumpJet Mailbox wrote: > In my surfing I have noticed that not all Gopher Server Administrators > are mapping all Item Types in their servers. Every file extension on > their server should be EXPLICITLY mapped to an Item Type. Below are > the standard Item Types understood by most Gopher Clients: [snip] > A concientious administrator should also include a listing of what they > have mapped on their server. Not all file systems make consistent (or indeed any) use of extensions. Take, for example, HFS from Mac, UFS or Ext2 from Unix/Linux based systems. Those file systems are completely agnostic to file extensions; they don't mean anything to anyone except the operator or user. The same is true with most URLs. Extensions don't matter. What gets spit out isn't always the same format as the input. (-: -- Aaron J. Angel. You know, That One Guy! Visit me on the web at http://www.aaronjangel.us/.