Re: Content filtering

sedwardssedwards.com
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:56:21 -0700 (PDT)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Joseph S. D. Yao: "Re: FW-1: Questions about DHCP and IPX"
• Previous message: DIGEX Grrrrrrrrrl: "Re: [FW1] How many rules can exists in fw1 ?"
• Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Content filtering"
• Reply: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Content filtering"
• Reply: Bennett Todd: "Re: Content filtering"

Several of my clients are "adult providers."

Suprisingly, they would prefer to be in an easily filtered domain like
"*.sex" so they don't have to worry about legal action from access by
minors.

Since the ".sex" top level domain is unlikely to happen, HTTPX would be
viable if it is supported by all browsers.

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Garbrick, Randy wrote:

> If you have an interest in the problem of filtering explicit content on
> the web, please check out this internet draft. It proposes using
> designated ports other than port 80 to provide explicit content, thereby
> making filtering a much simpler problem. Obviously, this would not
> provide a complete solution, it would only add an additional inexpensive
> tool to help with the problem.
>
>
> http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garbrick-shtp-00.txt
>
>
>
>

Thanks in advance,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Edwards sedwardssedwards.com Voice: +1-760-723-2727 PST
Newline Pager: +1-760-740-1220 Fax: +1-760-731-3000

• Next message: Joseph S. D. Yao: "Re: FW-1: Questions about DHCP and IPX"
• Previous message: DIGEX Grrrrrrrrrl: "Re: [FW1] How many rules can exists in fw1 ?"
• Next in thread: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Content filtering"
• Reply: Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Content filtering"
• Reply: Bennett Todd: "Re: Content filtering"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:11:47 CDT