From: Grant Taylor via COFF <email@example.com>
Subject: [COFF] Re: [TUHS] Re: the wheel of reincarnation goes sideways
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 15:58:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On 8/2/23 11:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> I guess?
I'm not endorsing it.
I have my own preferences that people question.
> 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
I can make the same file(s) available via:
Why can't I make the same file(s) available via Gopher too?
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
I'd likely include a BBS interface in this menagerie if I could do so.
For various $REASONS.
> 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?
> 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?
Grant. . . .
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-02 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAP6exY+05fStBtpZGd2HeeNf21fNXeKUTwBV0h5-1YczwFemail@example.com>
2023-03-08 19:52 ` [COFF] Re: [TUHS] " Dan Cross
2023-03-08 20:18 ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
2023-03-09 1:22 ` [COFF] Re: [TUHS] " John Cowan
2023-03-09 19:55 ` Dan Cross
2023-03-09 20:09 ` Larry McVoy
2023-03-11 20:32 ` Dan Cross
2023-03-11 23:28 ` Bakul Shah
[not found] ` <ZA+gxAePDMWK6StD@straylight.ringlet.net>
2023-03-13 22:34 ` Dan Cross
2023-07-05 21:48 ` Dan Cross
2023-07-05 23:58 ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2023-07-06 1:02 ` Dave Horsfall
2023-07-06 16:47 ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2023-07-06 2:35 ` Dan Cross
2023-07-06 4:18 ` Robert Stanford via COFF
2023-07-06 16:53 ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2023-07-06 17:54 ` Adam Thornton
2023-07-09 14:55 ` Michael Parson
2023-08-01 9:52 ` Michael Cardell Widerkrantz
2023-08-01 9:49 ` Michael Cardell Widerkrantz
2023-08-01 15:55 ` Dan Cross
2023-08-01 16:27 ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2023-08-02 16:07 ` Dan Cross
2023-08-02 20:58 ` Grant Taylor via COFF [this message]
2023-08-02 21:16 ` Dan Cross
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).