On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 12:37:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:28:26AM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:04:58PM -0700, William R Ward wrote: > > > Yes, I agree. URL's should only be removed once it is clear that they > > > are well and truly expired. But if they are valid only in a > > > particular TLD they probably shouldn't be in the global FAQ, at least > > > > I can't really bring myself to cry much if someone from outside .au > > gets denied at an .au mirror... > > If the world were simple I'd agree. > > But say I'm in on a machine in .au with reverse DNS that says I'm .com. > Do I get blocked or not? > Should I get blocked or not? > > This will depend on whether they're filtering by domain names in reverse > DNS, or by netblocks. And what if I don't have DNS? Or I'm in .nz, and > using the .au mirror because it's more logical than a US based mirror.
I have no idea how the restricted mirrors do their restricting, what criteria they exactly use. > Or I'm in .cx an expecting .au to let me in, because the Christmas > Islands are (for some definition) part of Australia > > (eg if I were in .im, .gg or .je I'd be irritated if a .uk mirror didn't > like me. Or if this machine (reverse DNS is .org, but it's physically in > Soho, Central London) were blocked by a .uk only mirror) > > So I think a warning might be useful for anything in a *global* FAQ that > restricts access based on some concept of location. (logical, physical > or topological) > > Nicholas Clark -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
