Re: [gopher] Joining in: I'm the maintainer/host of Gopher Proxy
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:47:46AM -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> > In principle, I have nothing but accolades for what you are doing. It's
> > just that I don't think it's the right way to get people to use gopher
> > resources, and further, only serves for further marginalize the
> > protocol, and has contributed in a big way to support for the protocol
> > to be dropped from browsers (Firefox just last year I think?).
>From what I remember, Mozilla was *quite* invested into dropping Gopher
support. No matter what arguments or comments people had against, they
were not even complaining about having to maintain the code (well, they
*did* complain, but once Cameron stepped forward and offered to maintain
it, it became quite obvious that it wasn't the real reason). I doubt not
having a way to access gopher though HTTP would have stopped them.
> > The main point however, is that I'm opposed to using a file called
> > 'robots.txt' on a gopher server. I'm not particular as to what that file
> > should be called other than that, however - perhaps, arachnid.txt would
> > suffice - but certainly, unequivocally, something that is specific to
> > gopher - *not* HTTP.
> I think Evert is proposing this for the *web* side of the proxy to retard
> That said, Veronica-2 already uses a robots.txt file so gopherholes can tell
> it to keep out of certain selectors, so this has precedent.
Also, I'd say that "robots.txt" sounds like something that's
robots-specific, not HTTP-specific. If robots.txt is already used for
HTTP, I wonder if the gopherspace shouldn't just use the same filename.
HTTP and gopher are somewhat similar with respect to spidering, I'd
say. From a spider point of view, maybe it'd be simpler to have to worry
with just one filename?
Nuno Silva (aka njsg)
Radiotieteen ja -tekniikan laitos
Aalto-yliopiston sähkötekniikan korkeakoulu
Gopher-Project mailing list