On Tue, 30 May 2000, mouss wrote:
> > Those same users could set up http tunnel to an IRC bot. If you're
> > playing at that, you've got bigger problems.
>
> what we are comparing is two approaches:
> - strip the tagged content
> - rename the tags.
>
> I was simply saying that the first approach is better. If you know
It's only better in some instances.
> moreover, from a "legal" viewpoint, I can "punish" users if I ever
> find they use tunnel through http, and that can be found by inspecting
> what flows over the network (I know it's bad, but that's possible)
> but can do nothing (and probably will
> never know) if they are simply converting ascii chars.
You can punish them for running a proxy too, and there are ways to find
this out as well. If the content does something evil, presumably you'll
detect it at some point and then all hell can rain down.
>From a legal viewpoint, removing tags is different than adding content
(such as comment characters) which may be preferable in some instances.
There's a significant ammount of bad things that an end-user can do, very
few of which aren't detectable at some stage. There are also some moral
arguments for allowing the user to see what's changed in "View Source"
versus silently stripping out content that you don't agree with (for
whatever reason) that sets precidents that may be better left unset.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
