[gopher] Re: RFC drafts

["Trevor" <greendragon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 
> 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
>
>