Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher+ Suggestion
From: "Aaron J. Angel" <aangel@myrealbox.com>
To: gopher@complete.org
In-Reply-To: <20020722020812.GD1410@complete.org>
References: <3D396734.4070409@myrealbox.com>
	<20020722020812.GD1410@complete.org>
Content-type: text/plain
Date: 21 Jul 2002 21:54:14 -0500
Message-Id: <1027306455.6837.2.camel@transa.aquarius.null>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

> Hmm, I'm not quite sure I follow you.  Gopher selectors do indeed support
> specifying a port.  If you run a gopherd on, say, port 2280, you can specify
> port 2280 in the selectors.  If on the inside it shows up as 2270, you could
> just run a second gopherd instance for the inside, making sure to say Port=+
> in your .Links files.

That's basically all one can do, short of using another IP address. 
There's no such thing as virtual hosting with Gopher, as the protocol
has no way for the client to send the hostname used to the server, and
it would be a bit awkward to make such a drastic change at this point
(unless it were backwards compatible, which is entirely possible, but
then only new Gopher clients would be able to comply with the new
standard, and I doubt many people use modern clients with a modern
implementation of the Gopher protocol).

-- 
Aaron J. Angel <aangel@myrealbox.com>

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-- File: signature.asc
-- Desc: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA9O3PWKjh8Do+vm9ARAoNGAKCQrSmbLw3KXKWud7YM9PbMD0fscQCgqmdE
epoxNR5JCEADIieERNN5RO0=
=OAjq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----