Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list gopher); Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:21:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]) by glockenspiel.complete.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FmBSY-0005Xn-Nr for gopher@complete.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:21:13 -0500 Received: from YTHERIX (cpe-66-24-19-116.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.19.116]) by ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k52FL3wA029654 for <gopher@complete.org>; Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006201c68658$28a93660$220110ac@YTHERIX> From: "Trevor" <greendragon@stny.rr.com> To: <gopher@complete.org> References: <20060518150511.18149.qmail@web35505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060601212829.GA3749@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:21:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Status: No (score 0.0): none X-Virus-Scanned: by Exiscan on glockenspiel.complete.org at Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:21:13 -0500 X-archive-position: 1309 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: greendragon@stny.rr.com 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

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.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Benn Newman" <newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org> To: <gopher@complete.org> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:28 PM Subject: [gopher] Re: RFC drafts

> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 08:05:11AM -0700, JumpJet Mailbox wrote: >> Persons seriously interested in giving input about how Gopher will be >> officially codified in the RFCs should examine and respond to the authors >> of documents: >> >> draft-hoffman-gopher-uri-03.txt >> draft-murali-url-gopher.txt >> >> Both of these documents are available on JumpJet ( >> gopher://home.jumpjet.info/11\Begin_Here\References ). These RFCs will >> be as important to the Gopher community as RFC1436, and it is imperative >> that they be addressed while still in final draft stage. > Those are *old*. What exactly do they change about the way we (try) to do > things? I noticed some Gopher+ stuff but nothing else of much interest. > -- > Benn Newman | newmanbe@sdf.lonestar.org | > gopher://igneous-rock.homeunix.net > -- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis -- > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkR/W/0ACgkQFE65lPR8xrG++wCfaGq/L8+X+q8D0wVseh3Peudl > YCoAnjC/vRr0iuQhu3efoI9Qo+uPPu2c > =u5ya > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/353 - Release Date: 5/31/2006 > >