-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 a self-certified whitelist that LL themselves don't stand by it is of no use either
On 29/4/2010 08:30, til...@xp2.de wrote: > Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr> wrote .. > >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote: >> >>> This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a >>> non-blacklisted viewer. >> >> If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted viewers >> left will be the TPV compliant ones, so that's actually a good thing... > > No, maintaining a WHITELIST is way better. And I am thinking not of the bad > guys now but the regular users who just want to use a client with additional > features. > > With a whitelist they know: this I can use without problems. > > With a blacklist they never know if a client NOT on the list is a good one or > a bad one that just didn't make it into the blacklist yet. > > And for the bad guys: they would just rename their client if their old one > got on the blacklist. And do this each time again. > > So a whitelist is the only valid solution. > > Tillie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAkvZchgACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmWsTACgjD8ljoTksSV0QjU5/cGMyxII Se4AnjUfc+uOqTnqwP3nYjzNVo35xT3y =7c7Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
