3 Aug
2023
3 Aug
'23
2:58 a.m.
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
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 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.
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. . . .