[gopher] Re: RFC drafts
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
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
>
>
|
|