Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> Just an idea I think would be cool is if LL made a tool (perhaps a
> script) that users could click on if they suspected their viewer to be
> bad or something and it would cause the viewer to send the info to LL
> for investigation.
>
> Perhaps also LL can have hashes of
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 05:21:20PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote:
> The questions I raised remain and I hope someone from LL can answer them.
Lindens will only reply with already published official statements
here, if at all. Ie, someone (once it gets Monday) will quote this
from the TPV policy:
6. The V
There already seems to be a black list, it just isn't published.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> Just an idea I think would be cool is if LL made a tool (perhaps a script)
> that users could click on if they suspected their viewer to be bad or
> something and it would c
Hi guys!
I'd just like to mention this part of the mailing list policies:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
"If someone else is violating mailing list policy, do not reply to
them on the list. Reply to them offlist if you feel you need to engage
them. If you feel disciplinary action
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:55:28 -0500, Brandon Husbands
wrote:
> I do not add much to the list.. But I will say... Mr lane, what ever
your
> problem is with Emerald... You should probably let it go. This blatant
> flaming and trolling does not help the open source community. Your
actions
> and flam
Just an idea I think would be cool is if LL made a tool (perhaps a script)
that users could click on if they suspected their viewer to be bad or
something and it would cause the viewer to send the info to LL for
investigation.
Perhaps also LL can have hashes of the viewer source code. Should it n
em.
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Husbands
To: Boy Lane
Cc: Discrete Dreamscape ; opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
Sighs.
Last post I am going to wor
onally, but I have serious concerns that
> made me stopping developing viewers. Even though they never had any
> malicious features at all.
>
> Boy
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Brandon Husbands
> *To:* Boy Lane
> *Cc:* Discrete Dreamscape ;
> opensource
riginal Message -
From: Brandon Husbands
To: Boy Lane
Cc: Discrete Dreamscape ; opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
My credentials are not up for discussion. Most in Second Life
ingle piece of safety
>>> or
>>> security. To
>>> look for a legitimate viewer the Alternate Viewer list in the community
>>> edited SL Wiki
>>> is a better place to, for the simple reason malicious clients may not
>>> easily
&g
ll to your credibility Mr. Brandon Husbands :).
- Original Message -
From: Boy Lane
To: Brandon Husbands ; Discrete Dreamscape
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
I
ly conclude you are the troll here.
Boy
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Husbands
To: Discrete Dreamscape
Cc: Boy Lane ; opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
I do not add
ou try to avoid.
>>
>> Additional question to Linden Lab: How can for repeated ToS violations
>> permanently
>> banned people just circumvent that ban by creating new accounts as many of
>> the
>> Emerald developers did? Is it money spent for SL that counts ra
of
> the
> Emerald developers did? Is it money spent for SL that counts rather than
> ToS?
>
> Boy
>
> - Original Message - > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:39:16 -0400
> > From: Discrete Dreamscape
> > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the
Nicky Perian wrote:
> +1
> A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and template
> to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get past the
> login screens.
Isn't just sending the login info form the laters offical viewer the
bewst way to get passed techical blacklistin
ccounts as many of
the
Emerald developers did? Is it money spent for SL that counts rather than
ToS?
Boy
- Original Message - > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:39:16 -0400
> From: Discrete Dreamscape
> Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
> directory
Too many people are trying to answer the question "is it possible to
get a malicious viewer registered on the TPV directory". While the
answer is most certainly yes the question is rather irrelevant. The
important question is "will malicious viewers be put in the TPV
directory". I'm pretty sure tha
> > *From:* opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com
> > [mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] *On Behalf Of
> > *Ron Festa
> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 29 2010 20:27
> > *To:* Henri
That's right. However, note what I implied: a blacklist would be worse by
misleading users even more, and it would discourage TPV usage in general.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tigro Spottystripes <
tigrospottystri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> D
pril 29 2010 20:27
> *To:* Henri Beauchamp
> *Cc:* opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
> *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
> directory ?
>
> Despite claiming the list is Self-Certified those viewers on the
> list still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Discrete, in both ways you can have viewers that the users think can be
trusted, but actually shouldn't
On 29/4/2010 15:04, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable
> than a list of untrust
_
From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com
[mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Ron Festa
Sent: Thursday, April 29 2010 20:27
To: Henri Beauchamp
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the
>
>
> This would be only true if LL was to *guarantee* that the listed viewer
> can *actually* be trusted, which is *not* the case with the current
> implementation of teh TPV directory.
>
>
The current TPV directory is a list of certified viewers. Despite claiming
the list is Self-Certified those
Not only that, but the only way the whitelist can work as a whitelist is
if LL not only tests the viewers on the list, but compiles the list
themselves. That means seeking out TPVs and accepting recommendations
from users, not just sitting around waiting for the makers to send them in.
In my op
Users could then assume all unlisted viewers are safe enough for use, which
is far more misleading than assuming a specific few are safe. A few who are
both known and have contact information on file, no less. If they don't make
this assumption, an action which any smart user should choose, then in
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:21 -0400, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable than
> a list of untrusted ones.
This would be only true if LL was to *guarantee* that the listed viewer
can *actually* be trusted, which is *not* the case with
A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable than
a list of untrusted ones.
Weigh the two possibilities that would occur and their consequences, given
that the user is making assumptions, as you say:
- User believes viewers ON the whitelist are the ONLY ones that can be
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Nicky Perian wrote:
> +1
> A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and
> template to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get
> past the login screens.
What you must understand is that the TPV policy is in no way a mean
to p
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:12 -0500, Michael Dickson wrote:
> And for that reason its actually a negative since it
> would give a possibly false assurance that a viewer not being listed is
> "ok". IMO the directory is doing what its meant to do, give an
> assurance that LL and the viewer creator h
I told everyone form the start that it was a VERY bad idea
to add any viewer to it.
This list should have stayed totally empty.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> Hi again, folks.
>
> Thinking about the TPV directory, I came to the conclusion that this
> tool, fir
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 09:10 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> > nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> > because of privacy and loc
, April 29, 2010 6:30:13 AM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV directory ?
Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>
> > This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
> > non-blacklisted
Am Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 13:46:48 schrieb Robert Martin:
> 2 the Onyx List: posted on the site of that green viewer and is a
> subset of the list used by the CDS banlink system
in related news, psyke phaeton has introduced a feature in his home security
orbs to "blanket-ban" based on last
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
a self-certified whitelist that LL themselves don't stand by it is of no
use either
On 29/4/2010 08:30, til...@xp2.de wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bad idea, as the TP
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:30 AM, wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>>
>> > This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
>> > non-blacklisted viewer.
>>
>> If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted vi
Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>
> > This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
> > non-blacklisted viewer.
>
> If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted viewers
> left will be the TPV compliant ones, so t
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
> This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
> non-blacklisted viewer.
If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted viewers
left will be the TPV compliant ones, so that's actually a good thing...
Henri.
__
This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
non-blacklisted viewer.
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 12:01 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:33 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> >
> > > Instead
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:33 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> > nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> > because of privacy and l
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> because of privacy and local Law concerns, why not making a black
> list ?
>
> The black list w
Hi again, folks.
Thinking about the TPV directory, I came to the conclusion that this
tool, first intended as an advertizing one, doesn't currently reach
its goal and even mistakes some users who think they will not be able
to use their favourite viewer after the 30th of April if it's not
listed i
41 matches
Mail list logo
