On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:58 PM Grant Taylor via COFF <coff(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
On 8/2/23 11:07 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
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'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
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.
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.
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.