Re: Porn Lists (Maybe Off Topic)

True. The basic ACL rejection mechanism provides a useful security tool,
if nothing else. Also, it allows us to cope with certain 'emergency'
conditions (There's one site where http://sitename/dirname/ redirects to
http://sitename/dirname/dirname/ which redirects to
http://sitename/dirname/dirname/dirname/ and so on forever. Oddly, and
we have yet to explore exactly why, this brings squid 2.2 to it's knees)

D

David Drummond wrote:
>
> Removing the ACL blocking capability of Squid would result in some of us no
> longer being able to use it (or simply sticking with an older version which
> does).
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Smith [mailto:easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, 24 July 1999 14:11
> To: Dancer
> Cc: Olivier Tourchon; squid-users@ircache.net; Daniel.malmgren@lund.se
> Subject: Re: Porn Lists (Maybe Off Topic)
>
> On Jul 24, 12:08am, Dancer (possibly) wrote:
> > Agreed. I'm anti-censorship myself, as well. However, if the customer
> > wants to have themselves censored, then the customer can _have_
> > themselves censored. They're paying for the service, and if they want ot
> > pay money NOT to see some websites, I'm not going to argue with 'em.
>
> Are they imposing this on those who don't wish it and don't have any
> choice on the matter, e.g., children?
>
> > Besides, despite my email address, I'm in Australia. Internet censorship
> > is now law here.
>
> So? Why should the rest of us help it?
>
> -Allen
>
> P.S. Given that nlanr is using government funds, a lawsuit to stop
> incorporating any block-useful features into squid would be quite
> possible...
>
> --
> Allen Smith easmith@beatrice.rutgers.edu
>
Received on Sun Jul 25 1999 - 17:10:16 MDT