On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:21 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 02:06:32 PM Ted Gould wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:48 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 02:41:35 PM Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > > > > As for the actual change, it is limited to the > > > > /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf file; to which the following > > > > will be added: > > > > > > > > [connectivity] > > > > uri=http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html > > > > response=Lorem ipsum > > > > > > > > See the manual page for NetworkManager.conf(5) for the details of what > > > > these settings do. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have questions or think there are good > > > > reasons not to enable this feature. If there is no response by the end > > > > of the week, I'd like to proceed with a enabling this in Quantal and > > > > making sure it gets well tested. > > > > > > I think that a significant fraction of Ubuntu's user base is (reasonably) > > > very sensitive about privacy issues. While this is no worse the the NTP > > > check that already exists (that is controversial), I don't think it > > > should be enabled by default. > > > > I think that for those who are concerned, this is trivial to disable. > > But, I think what happens for those who are, is that Ubuntu "does the > > right thing" by default. If you're at a hotel or other location that > > captures for a login page, you won't get your mail and apt and ... all > > downloading bogus stuff. > > First, I do a fair amount of travelling for $WORK, so I know all about these. > > For people who travel, they already know about logging into the web page when > you get to the hotel. > > This kind of check doesn't actually guarantee anything since different places > handle these things differently. Even if the proposed check works, if a > hotel > captures and redirects port 25 or 587 (yes, port 587 redirection happens, > although it's positively brain dead and rare) then your mail is still screwed. > > If you're connected of not is on a port by port basis, so I don't think this > reliably solves the problem in any case.
Solving it for a good proportion of cases is better than not solving it at all. It drives me nuts that Evolution and gnome-xchat spew error messages before I log into a portal, when this problem is already solved on other operating systems by using essentially the same technique. Marc. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
