HTTP-without-porn should be called BurkaHTTP. I'm sure there's a backronym that will fit… On Aug 28, 2013 4:15 AM, "mick" <m...@rlogin.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:34:13 -0700 > Andy Isaacson <a...@hexapodia.org> allegedly wrote: > > > > > If only there were a separate TCP port for HTTP-with-Porn and all the > > pornographers used it, then an exit policy for "HTTP-without-porn" > > would be possible. But alas, we don't even have vague agreement on > > what constitutes porn, much less a social contract requiring all > > pornographers to segregate their traffic for our convenience. > > > > RFC6969, Pornographic HTTP. #ideasforapril1 > > Wonderful! Love it. (I have often pondered the possibility of a DPI > "porn filter" which rejects traffic based on the "proportion of flesh > coloured packets to the total" or some such nonsense. Second order > problem - define "flesh coloured".) > > Best > > Mick > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mick Morgan > gpg fingerprint: FC23 3338 F664 5E66 876B 72C0 0A1F E60B 5BAD D312 > http://baldric.net > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > tor-relays mailing list > tor-relays@lists.torproject.org > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays > >
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays