From: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Date: Tue Aug 5 17:55:28 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)