Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:18:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from hal3000.cx ([208.178.204.173]) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D8SQs-00087X-MT for gopher@complete.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:18:46 -0600 Received: from work1.hal3000.cx (work1.hal3000.cx [10.0.0.2]) by hal3000.cx (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA93206 for <gopher@complete.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:15:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from chris@hal3000.cx) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:00:22 -0600 From: Chris <chris@hal3000.cx> To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: [Fwd: [Bug 285003] Mozilla ignores port number on Gopher URI] Message-Id: <20050307180022.40808b7f@work1.hal3000.cx> In-Reply-To: <422C6DCE.5030506@route-add.net> References: <422C6DCE.5030506@route-add.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0): none X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:18:46 -0600 X-archive-position: 1027 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: chris@hal3000.cx Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org List-help: <mailto:ecartis@complete.org?Subject=help> List-unsubscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=unsubscribe> List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: Gopher <gopher.complete.org> X-List-ID: Gopher <gopher.complete.org> List-subscribe: <mailto:gopher-request@complete.org?Subject=subscribe> List-owner: <mailto:jgoerzen@complete.org> List-post: <mailto:gopher@complete.org> List-archive: <http://www.complete.org/mailinglists/archives/> X-list: gopher

Thanks Alessandro,

I will have to register as a user to vote it seems. I will have more time in a couple days. A quick thought though...if your going to support a protocol wouldn't it make sense to support it fully ... else not. I guess in my eyes its more cut and dried... It either works or its broken. I didn't understand the one concept of that gopher is not used much so why fix it. Another idea before I head to work. Now all the browsers spun off of it are also broke. This would be a good teaching tool as an example for students about implications of leaving broken/ bad code in an application. I think Moz would have been better off to not support gopher at all, perhaps they could have an external application (like lynx) handle gopher for them ;)

Later heading to work... Chris

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:05:50 +0100 Alessandro Selli <dhatarattha@route-add.net> wrote:

> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71916 > > Oh well, it was quite well discussed before, three years ago! > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158888 > > Quite an interesting discussion, too. Sound like an agreement was found > in order to fix the "problem". But it seems they didi not implement it. > > The final comment was: > > > ------- Additional Comment #13 From Bradley Baetz 2003-06-10 02:08 > > PST [reply] ------- > > > >mitch: see my comment #7. We now protect against this better and more > > generally, > >and we should be abel to remove the hack which was added just before > > the > >milestone freeze a couple of years ago. > > Comment #7 was: > > > ------- Additional Comment #7 From Bradley Baetz 2002-08-10 01:40 PST > > [reply] ------- > > > >Mitch - we added the blocked ports list, but that was _after_ bug 71916 > >was > >fixed (severel hours before the milestone freeze). I'm proposing to > > back out the > >fix for bug 71916 on the grounds that the blocked ports list now > > prtocets > >against that problem. > > So, weren't they supposed to rely on the blocked ports list, instead > of limiting Gopher to port 70? > I also read: > > > ------- Additional Comment #4 From Roland Mainz 2003-03-20 09:47 PST > > [reply] ------- > > > >Peter Tynan wrote: > >> I for one would really like to see Gopher support fixed > > > >Then _VOTE_ for this bug > >(http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/votes.cgi?action=show_user&bug_id=194220). > >And get > >all your friend, enemies, etc. to vote for it, too (but: usually > > mozilla.org > >people don't care about bugzilla votes except you break the "50 votes" > > barrier > >(100 are better)) ... :) > > Well, votes are indeed lacking! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Bug 285003] Mozilla ignores port number on Gopher URI > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:57:13 -0800 > From: bugzilla-daemon@mozilla.org > To: dhatarattha@route-add.net > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=285003 > > > ostgote@gmx.net changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |ostgote@gmx.net > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From ostgote@gmx.net 2005-03-07 00:57 PST > ------- > I guess this is because of Bug 71916 (only prot 70 is allowed). So this > seems a > duplicate of Bug 158888 to me. > > See also Bug 194220. > > > -- > Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > > > -- > Alessandro Selli > Tel: 340.839.73.05 > http://alessandro.route-add.net > > >

-- Join FSF as an Associate Member at: <URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014>