On Saturday 26 July 2003 6:25 pm, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > All you need to make that technically work is to define a DNS > namespace for URLs. DNS as such is very neutral as long as it is > defined that the name space for this purpose and is not to look up > host names. To not confuse others who look into the database A > records should be avoided. There is many other suitable record types > to use.
Agreed. DNS is very versatile. However, the fact that you may need to query on quite a long URL (going well beyond the first /) makes the database much more complex than the one used for email RBLs. > One of many difficulties, but probably relatively minor if the system > works by content classification rather than abstract terms about how > suitable the content is. If you classify the site as a certain type > of web site (port, email, portal, business, banking, trading etc) > then unless you did an error others is likely to agree. I agree, but I don't really see how this sort of classification is useful? I assumed the whole point of the idea was to be able to identify sites carrying pornography, jokes, religious views, anarchist material, pirated music, copied software etc? > I would not agree, but I would not thing it is feasible on a "free" > basis alone. However, "free", "open" and "volunteer" were important parts of the initial proposal; that's the main reason why I didn't think it could be achieved. Antony. -- Most people are aware that the Universe is big. - Paul Davies, Professor of Theoretical Physics
