[gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)

[JumpJet Mailbox <jumpjetinfo@xxxxxxxxx>]

This NewsGroup is available via Gopher at:
gopher://gopher.quux.org/1/Archives/Mailing%20Lists/gopher

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Jay Nemrow <jnemrow@xxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Jay Nemrow <jnemrow@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [gopher] Re: Fate of the Protocol (was Re: Gopherness)
To: gopher@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 11:43 AM

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Avery M. <averym@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jay Nemrow <jnemrow@xxxxxxx> 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.