On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:05:29PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > On Monday 02 April 2001 12:51, tavinwrote: > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 12:51:12PM -0400, Gianni Johansson wrote: > > > On Monday 02 April 2001 09:42, Tavin wrote: > > > > This has been argued over before. I don't think it should, the reason > > > > being that it's not 100% effective, and it will lull people into a > > > > false sense of security. Sure it blocks that <img> tag, but I'll bet > > > > you if I spent a half hour I could figure out something that would slip > > > > past the filter. A while ago it was as simple as a meta tag refresh, > > > > but I think that one got fixed ;') > > > > > > > > The only thing that could be 100% effective would be to set your > > > > browser to use a real proxy for all protocols which would perform > > > > http->freenet relaying like fproxy but would block any outgoing > > > > non-freenet traffic. > > > > > > > > After I finish some of the stuff I'm working on, if no one else steps > > > > up, I will write one of these, maybe as a service to be run with the > > > > node, maybe external.. dunno. > > > > > > > > Anyway, with FCP in the node now we're in a good position to create > > > > this beast. > > > > > > I disagree. How are you going to trap all protocols? You will have to > > > filter the HTML.. > > > > Um, pretty easy.. set the proxy for all protocols to the freenet proxy > > program.. > > > "easy" for who? proxy configuration is not joke for joe clueless Windows > user. Are you really ready to test deploy and support configuration for a > variety of browsers and plaforms?
Well IE and Netscape both support PAC (Proxy Auto-Configuration) scripts.. so we could provide one. Not that it's all that hard to open up a dialog box and type in "localhost" and a port number. I'd say that's probably easier than getting freenet and fproxy installed and working in the first place (maybe not, never installed it on windows myself). > Does this mean that you are going to write pass through proxies for all > protocols? Well, the idea is to *block* everything but freenet: .. but I guess you could have it switch modes so it would just pass things through.. that shouldn't be very hard. > You can probably make this work for motivated technically astute users. What > about the rest? > > I'm not saying don't do this. Hell, I will probably use it if you implement > it. I just don't see it a solution for the average end user. Whereas the > existing filter is. Well, whatever ;-) I guess I shouldn't care how badly the average end user is compromising their anonymity. -- # tavin cole # if code is law, then Freenet is a crowded theater _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
