[COFF] Re: [TUHS] Re: the wheel of reincarnation goes sideways

[Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:58 PM Grant Taylor via COFF <coff@tuhs.org> wrote:
> On 8/2/23 11:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>[snip]
> > Exactly. There are even pre-baked things one could put together
> > that would serve much the same purpose. Going back to gopher et al
> > seem like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. A small HTTP
> > server that serves a little subtree of files on some random port
> > and automatically renders markdown or something into trivial HTML is
> > really all one needs.
>
> I always wanted something that would re-use the same content between
> multiple services.
>
> I can make the same file(s) available via:
>
>   - FTP(S)
>   - HTTP(S)
>
> Why can't I make the same file(s) available via Gopher too?

I'm sure you can if that interests you. I just don't see much of a
point, personally. But if that's what you're into, get on down with
it.

> I wondered if it might be possible to do some magic at the file system
> level where the same source file(s) could be used and add wrappers
> around it to integrate said source file(s) into rendered files served up
> via the various protocols.
>
> Obviously I've not yet been motivated to do anything with Gopher in this
> regard.
>
> I'd likely include a BBS interface in this menagerie if I could do so.
> For various $REASONS.

I don't know why that wouldn't be easily doable in a server for each
protocol. I believe that some BBS packages already do this, but I
don't really know.

> > Tell that to the Fidonet people. :-)
>
> The last time I looked, much of Fidonet (proper) and other FTNs were
> still using the Fido protocol (nomenclature?) to communicate between
> nodes.  There were a few offering SMTP gateways.
>
> Have more of them migrated to SMTP gateways where Fidonet is now more of
> a separate SMTP network?

No. I think most of the actual Fidonet people are either waiting for
the Big One and the collapse of the Internet, or arguing about how
someone dissed them in 1989.

> > I don't see what the protocol has to do with it, but sure.
>
> I should clarify that I view SMTP as used on the Internet today as a
> very large network of federated email servers speaking a common
> protocol.  As such the network is largely interdependent on various
> other parts of the network, e.g. DNS.
>
> I was hoping that Fidonet (proper) as an FTN was still using Fido
> protocol (nomenclature) such that it was largely independent from the
> aforementioned SMTP network.
>
> Does the protocol separation make more sense now?

I thought I was rather clear that one could use the SMTP protocol
independently of the existing email network, but sure.

        - Dan C.