On Aug 28, 2013 4:15 AM, "mick" <mbm@rlogin.net> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:34:13 -0700
Andy Isaacson <adi@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