hmm... the discriminated providers (us, cyberlink, into, etc.) could do now a pretty good marketing job: "we don't filter like other providers have to do" *grins* just a joke
i hope the canton vaud will take back their order... > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im > Auftrag von Viktor Steinmann > Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2002 14:35 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: Re: [swinog] [Fwd: Sperrverf�gungen der Untersuchungsrichterin > des Kantons Waadt - Muster f�r eine Einsprache] > > > > > Unless you're packet filtering, restricting access via DNS or proxy is > > pointless, as I can bypass the proxy or use another DNS server, and I > > doubt anyone here realistically has the capacity to firewall all their > > clients. However, wouldn't actually complying with this sort of advice > > send a signal to a non-technical bureaucrat that it is, indeed possible? > > Remember that a lot of these people have no concept of scale--if it's > > possible for one address, it must be doable for ten million.... > > I guess every techie agrees on the point, that blocking access to > a site by > means of DNS or proxy filtering is pretty useless. > > However - it's what they want us to do. So let's not give 'em > ideas on what > else could be done... :-) > > Cheers, > Viktor > ---------------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/ > ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
