the relevant sentiment is: thanks for whitelisting a fixed number of them so i can block them.
t On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:42 AM Royce Williams <ro...@techsolvency.com> wrote: > The difference is that Chrome won't use resolvers other than the ones > you've configured yourself, and will simply opportunistically upgrade to > DoH if they detect that those resolvers support it. > > In other words, there is no usurpation of administrative intent. > > Royce > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 7:30 AM Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote: > >> It's not clear to me whether Paul is expressing approval of the whole >> shebang >> at this point, or just the one change they've made, but, just on first >> look, >> I don't think that change addresses *my* distaste for DoH, as discussed in >> last month's 100-poster. :-) >> >> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/dns-over-https-google-hits-back-at-misinformation-and-confusion-over-its-plans/ >> >> TL;DR: they (Chrome) won't enable DoH unless it's being run from an >> internet >> which they know supports it; there are apparently a list of 8-12 ISPs/etc >> which are announcing such support. >> >> Cheers, >> -- jra >> >> -- >> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink >> j...@baylink.com >> Designer The Things I Think RFC >> 2100 >> Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land >> Rover DII >> St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 >> 1274 >> >