[gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one

[JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting thought.  I can see from a historical perspective why you would 
want to do this.  
   
  But tell me, Why "historical"?  You make it sound like Gopher is something 
that belongs on a dusty shelf in a museum.  Isn't Gopher a LIVING protocol?  
Shouldn't we always be thinking of Gopher as a Modern, Useful, Current, Active, 
piece of the great Internet network; and therefore always trying to make Gopher 
Better, Healthier, and more Relavant to today? 
  
Cameron Kaiser <spectre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  > V-2 works great for me on its current port 70. I know that much of the
> software currently available (be it a modern Web Browser, or ancient legacy
> Gopher Client) has trouble if Gopher is not on Port 70. Perhaps port 70 IS
> the best port for a Veronica??? 

I understand your reasoning, but part of my goals with the Floodgap gopher
is historical and 2347 was the historical port.

However, practically speaking, you're quite correct and I'm certainly not
going to take V-2 *off* the main port. I'm just going to erect an
interface on 2347 that will send it queries too, but the main V-2 will
always be accessible on 70.

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. -- G. Marx -




       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.