Re: Content filtering

Ryan Russell (ryanrsybase.com)
Fri, 25 Sep 1998 23:18:48 -0700

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: sandeep kumar: "Re: Firewall-Wizards Digest V1 #197"
• Previous message: Marcus J. Ranum: "Re: Apology - not necessary"
• In reply to: Frank Willoughby: "Re: Apology - not necessary"

No, it would be terribly useful. There are a large number of
institutions who could write a one-line access list to block
the port number in question, but won't neccessarily install
an HTTP to parse and filter HTML. I've got a high school
I help out with networking stuff, and they would LOVE to
be able to block one port and eliminate all the porn.

Of course, all the porn sites are as likely to all go out
and change what port they run on as they are to label
their content.

                    Ryan

----------------------------------
Ahem.

There is already a standard for marking pages as having "objectionable
content" (see the W3C web site for details), and if browser makers and
others wanted to use it, they could.

Wasting another port on this seems less than useful in that light.

• Next message: sandeep kumar: "Re: Firewall-Wizards Digest V1 #197"
• Previous message: Marcus J. Ranum: "Re: Apology - not necessary"
• In reply to: Frank Willoughby: "Re: Apology - not necessary"

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