On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 08:39:42PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> On Saturday 31 August 2002 14:41, you wrote:
>
>
> > So an alternate date format may make sense... how about
> >
> > /DATE at YYYYMMDD/SSK at ...? SSK at blah/blah at YYYYMMDD ? @ is reserved
> > in keys,
> > isn't it?
>
> This looks confusing to me. I wouldn't use the @ symbol. That already has a
> meaning.
>
> Whats wrong with:
>
> /__DATE__YYYYMMDD/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
>
> or maybe something like this since DBR's can have periods shorter than 1 day.
>
> /__DATE__YYYYMMDDHHMM/SSK%40rBjVda8pC-Kq04jUurIAb8IzAGcPAgM/TFE//
>
>
> It's just a matter of taste I guess. As long as you are not using "?" I
> don't really care how you do it.
Any web page on the public internet can inline, even invisibly, a link
to a page on fproxy, with whatever arguments he wants to use. So we
can't allow any really unsafe ? arguments in fproxy, and we certainly
can't allow posting from a get form (thanks oskar).
>
> >
> > I want old-edition links to work without invoking click-through security,
> > because they represent no conceivable security risk above regular links.
> We definitely agree here.
> > The other possibility is to special case ?date=YYYYMMDD<end of URL> in the
> > parser.
> I don't like this idea for the reasons I outlined in my previous message.
>
> It's a slippery slope....
>
> -- gj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020901/fdc66120/attachment.pgp>
