On 10 Aug 00, at 20:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That leaves, like, the Netscape 3 users. I really doubt
> that there are that many Netscape 3 users out there. (Doesn't it have the
> most primitive level of Javascript support and whatnot as well? Hopefully
> that would have annoyed users into upgrading by now. It sure did for me
> and IE3.)
Nah, Javascript is a security hazard I'm happier to do without (or at
least turn off, except for a very few "trusted" sites).
> Maybe someone who's a webmaster could check their server logs
> and see how many non-PNG compliant people are viewing their pages; it'd be
> rather representative if Mr. Kurowski could do that. I think it'll be a
> small minority, maybe an order of magnitude higher than the number of
> people who still use Lynx.
Won't prove anything. I have my browser working through a _free_
third-party proxy called Junkbuster which changes the browser & OS
identities seen by the web site when you contact it. I tend to use
Netscape 4.7 on either linux (RH 6.1) or Windows 2000 but identify
myself as Netscape 2.0 running on MacOS (and I don't have a Mac!). As
well as confusing sites which try to collect irrelevant statistics at
the expense of privacy, I also use Junkbuster to delete intensely
annoying and bandwidth wasting flashing banner ads, which it can do
most efficiently (signalling error 404 directly to the browser
without even bothering to try to contact the server). It can
selectively munch cookies, too ...
In the un*x community, changing the program name and/or version
number which a server reports to a client (or vice versa) is a
widespread tactic. The information is _not_ needed; open standards
compliance _is_ (which is why I try very hard to avoid using IE). The
point of masquerading identification info is to trick hostile sites
into attempting inappropriate attacks, providing evidence which can
be used to identify & tackle "crackers".
>
> I suppose... if it turns out that most people who visit GIMPS sites still
> haven't seen the light of day and switched to a PNG-supporting browser, I
> could go back and provide GIF versions of the banners again. Though I
> don't particularly like the idea; PNG is just way too cool.
Especially since the idea is to use public-domain software instead of
relying on GIFs being too widespread for anyone to actually collect
the royalties to which they are undoubtedly entitled.
BTW Netscape users outside the US should also check out a _free_
program called Fortify which provides US-strength encryption
capability for the "international" version. Still nowhere near strong
enough, but a good deal better.
Regards
Brian Beesley
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.exu.ilstu.edu/mersenne/faq-mers.txt
