Re: Content filtering

Bennett Todd (betmordor.net)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 11:32:29 -0400

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Antonomasia: "Re: why isn't there a newer linux fw-howto"
• Previous message: Stephen P. Gibbons: "Re: Transparent vs. Non-transparent AGs/SPFs/whatever"
• In reply to: Bill_Roydspch.gc.ca: "Re: Transparent vs. Non-transparent AGs/SPFs/whatever"
• Next in thread: Alec Muffett - SunLabs: "Re: Content filtering"

1998-09-24-10:56:21 sedwardssedwards.com:
> 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.

HTTPX is as well supported as anything else for this purpose; all browsers
should be able to view such sites (it's just a different port, which can be
encoded in the URL); I don't know of any browsers which currently support code
to block such URLs, but it's really easy to block them with any firewall code
I know of. Except of course for the use of anonymizers to bypass blocks....

-Bennett

• Next message: Antonomasia: "Re: why isn't there a newer linux fw-howto"
• Previous message: Stephen P. Gibbons: "Re: Transparent vs. Non-transparent AGs/SPFs/whatever"
• In reply to: Bill_Roydspch.gc.ca: "Re: Transparent vs. Non-transparent AGs/SPFs/whatever"
• Next in thread: Alec Muffett - SunLabs: "Re: Content filtering"

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