Wow! 😳 The Gopher community (on the mailing list) is rather hostile 😢 I asked what the state of Gopher + TLS is these days and the response I got was basically:
- TLS is an abomination
- Gopher is a TCP protocol (doesn’t TLS use TCP too?!)
- Gopher is already a fractured ecosystem
- blah blah blah
Not one single positive/constructive response.
Gopher is dead to me in that case 🤦♂️
@abucci@anthony.buc.ci Yeah I know. Clearly some people don’t understand wtf TCP even means let alone TLS 🤦♂️
TLS is absolutely applicable to Gopher and people have done it, but there’s no standard so everyone implements it differently.
It’s not widely implemented in clients or daemons.
Also, lots of people are against TLS because it’s too hard to implement on your own; Gopher daemons would need to depend on an external library.
If you want Gopher encrypted, the best option is to make your Gopher daemon accessible as a Tor hidden service.
@mckinley@twtxt.net See now why couldn’t “they” discuss and have an interim sonceration like this 😆
Yes you would have to depend on a library for TLS but so what? That’s just good reuse right?
😆 that guy’s post is actually pretty interesting to me. SSL is fugazi? Can it be? 🧐
This document was an interesting read, posted by Hiltjo in the second thread linked by @movq@www.uninformativ.de.
It’s Bitreich’s backwards-compatible standard for extensions to the Gopher protocol, including TLS.
@movq@www.uninformativ.de Cameron Kaiser raised a very good point, quite valid 👌