Travis Bemann <tabemann at wisc.edu> writes: > I think that a good compromise would be to put up a warning page > where the user has to type "I do know that Micro$oft Internet > Explorer is an insecure piece of shit" as specified by the page into > a text item in a form (the $ would be mandatory) and then press a > button to actually use fproxy, to keep people from simply clicking > through without paying real serious attention to the warning. :)
Your rage against MS's stance is perfectly understandable, but let's try a more clear minded approach. Otherwise we will lose more respect than we'll gain. First, it would be nice if (rather than checking the browser version) the bug could be tested directly. This could work: Serve "check.txt" declared text/plain in a small frame, non-scrolling frame. This file will contain a lot of linefeeds, and finally <html><head><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=/bug_warning.html"> A buggy browser will interpret the HTML, and therefore most likely the refresh command. Others will just show everything as text (and hopefully the above junk will not be in view). The warning page should contain an explanation, solutions (e.g. links to fine browsers), and a "I don't care about anonymity" button. Disabling the warning should be possible in the config file, with dire warnings there as well. As a final thought, couldn't we just work around deficiencies like that? What happens if you send "text/x-really-plain" instead? -- Robbe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.ng Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020906/56b66225/attachment.pgp>
