Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:00:58 -0600
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: "groxies"
Message-ID: <20040315170058.GD30014@complete.org>
References: <200403150450.UAA13420@floodgap.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200403150450.UAA13420@floodgap.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 08:50:34PM -0800, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> Due to some research on a project I'm working on (sssh! all will be revealed
> very soon), I'm looking at methods of proxying Gopher through today's
> firewalls. Myself, I use SOCKS on my own internal firewall (I get arguably
> higher throughput than NAT with it), but I like the simplicity of HTTP
> proxies and how very little work has to be done for the client.

You may be interested in using the "CONNECT" method of a HTTP proxy.
Designed for use with HTTPS sites, it lets you establish a direct socket
connection to a remote through the HTTP proxy.  That may do what you
want and has the advantage of not requiring you to have administrative
access to the proxy server.

> One other idea I had was allowing gopher to tunnel through HTTP as a method
> of getting around ignorant site administrators that block port 70. A HTTP
> groxy could accept GET requests to it in the same form an HTTP *P*roxy would,
> but would execute a gopher request on the other side and return the document
> with the right MIME type or application/gopher-menu as appropriate.

That also sounds useful.