From: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Date: Mon Aug 4 23:00:03 2008
Subject: [gopher] Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
When you say "I don't care to read about it," do you mean that you
don't care to read about creating the new protocol?
If you are referring to the Gopherness thread, you are right to be
complaining about its direction! At some point, someone got seriously
off track, probably typing a response to another thread in this one in
error. Of course, no one can control where forks end up.
Actually, I have to disagree with the fate of the RFC. If those who
want to change the protocol insist on using port 70 and "obsolete" the
RFC through creating a replacement, Gopher will essentially disappear
as an established service. Confusion will begin as you must try to
ascertain what "flavor" of gopher is being served and some clients
will work and some will not with some servers. If it is going to be a
free-for-all on port 70 and no one cares that it will be, most people
will abandon it as worthless. It is like some spammer taking over a
newsgroup - everyone just wanders off because comp.sys.atom becomes
spam.spam.spam. I don't want that to happen on port 70.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Avery M. <averym@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jay Nemrow <jnemrow@quix.us> wrote:
>> I think the ultimate fate of the protocol is very much
>> an important thing to discuss here.
>
> This discussion is not about the fate of the protocol (as far as I can
> tell, the RFC will not bitrot for some time now). It is about creating
> a new protocol and I don't care to read about it.
>
>
>
Thread start
(DIR) [gopher] Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
(DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
(DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
(DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
(DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)