On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:34:13 -0700 Andy Isaacson <adi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays