From: gopher-bounce@complete.org Date: Tue Aug 5 17:55:01 2008 Subject: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness) On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Avery M. <averym@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jay Nemrow <jnemrow@quix.us> wrote: >> 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. > > Not true. I will simply remove all links to any server using a > different protocol. While using port 70 to serve a different protocol > is rude and violates widely observed RFC decorum, it would only take a > minute or two to remove links to innovative servers; using this list > to discuss innovations is even worse because it clogs up my inbox. If I don't mind the innovations as long as they don't break old clients. I plan on running a vanilla gopher0 server as long as I have resources to do so, so as long as new clients can still talk gopher0, I could care less about the rest. > anyone insists on discussing this here and refuses to create a new > list, please let me know now so I can add you to my spam filter. As for the discussions, if we are not discussing innovations, what on earth would we be discussing on a gopher list? This would be as dead as the gopher newsgroup often is. Sounds as if you would like a very-low-volume list, so you might consider following the newsgroup instead of this mailing list. Thread start (DIR) [gopher] Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness) 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)