Re: [gopher] (no subject)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Apologies for the top post...
Relevant segue for raising the ugly head of this topic again is actually
going to follow this posting.
Now here's where I put on my flame retardant suit...
On 05/16/2011 07:22 PM, Bradley D. Thornton wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 12:14 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>>> do anyone else observe 126.96.36.199, gopherproxy.org is accessing a
>>> selector every minute for day in a row ? , seems like
>>> someone is crawling through that proxy.
>> That someone is probably a web robot. I've had a few go-rounds with the
>> proprietor of gopherproxy.org when I temporarily blocked it for DOSing the
>> Twitter->gopher gateway after causing it to exceed its rate limit.
> Yeah, although I haven't blocked any HTTP to Gopher proxies (yet), I
> consider it from time to time - I just don't think it's time to block
> them yet. I will, however, at some point.
> My thinking is this:
> Gopher isn't something to *bring back*. It is simply (whether I am
> endeared to it or not) a useful protocol, that went overlooked and was
> marginalized by the dot-com bubble a decade ago.
> Advertising blitzkriegs, etc., just don't fit well in the Gopher model.
> Its utility is outstanding for serving files without kruft, although I'm
> still waiting on the latest data from Vishnu to see how well we're
> coming along with search technology - one of the keys to rebuilding
> critical mass.
> At this point, HTTP to Gopher proxies serve, affirmatively, to build
> that critical mass, but there's no point in supporting, by porting to,
> the gopher protocol if all that exists is the same ole same ole.
> That's why A good percentage of my gopherholes are populated with
> *unique content* that you can't get from me via HTTP - namely, a rather
> large repository of 64bit Slackware packages.
> Now, that sounds great, but for those of you who aren't fellow slackers,
> I need to disclose that most slackers do things ourselves (Make our own
> packages from source), so there isn't a truly great demand for [most] of
> my packages. Some you can only get from me, and since pretty much
> everyone uses Firefox, Iceweasel, or Icecat, they already have direct
> For the b0n3h34ds running Internet Exploder, they have, as an option at
> this time, to browse my gopherhole via an HTTP proxy.
> In the future, I intend to simply categorically block all HTTP to Gopher
> proxies, not to be mean, but to encourage the use of either gopher
> clients, or gopher capable clients.
> I'm proud to say that I've even gotten flamed a couple of times for not
> making the more unique parts of my respository available via HTTP.
> I figure you can always use Lynx, in a pinch ;)
> But for now... We're simply building awareness (people have short
> memories), once we build demand, I'll close the HTTP door. I have no
> idea when that will be. Maybe it will be like an Arnold movie when he
> says, "You'll know when I give the signal".
> Think of it as my way of contributing to our refoliation project :)
> I know I've ranted a couple of times in chan #gopherproject about this a
> few times, but Cameron, you're not there, so this may be the first time
> you've heard it from me ;)
> Thoughts, everyone?
Gopher-Project mailing list
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
TEL: +1.310.388.9469 (US)
TEL: +44.203.318.2755 (UK)
TEL: +41.43.508.05.10 (CH)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Find this cert at x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gopher-Project mailing list