[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Child pornography blocking again

To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Child pornography blocking again
From: Kraktus <kraktus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:46:46 -0500
Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:46:56 -0500
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Zpfrh+cr3j5MoY9CzIiKCWn17c3X63yDlkTMWARV2ro=; b=v93kJYCeb625Rur+kwTxaxe8OqTEUU7fM/MceNvJlWiFdZ9+BRRhXivckDuaDYU81SAU53U6LK6xxzfeMPHZyBvp8X62JTNI1So4cd0K8mKkR7VZjFIljV1ZUImYO0aE/jpeDz2jhBfwFnpda4KaTbgehkaQ7eIseKe50tRQrro=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qoSj/1pqFeEHH7u0lcTb+qq1XP31DBjeU72hxejSzhIbnvrprlvvwdNxRWz3vdVinDauiNbNucsQhXXfpSRLk/f0MkEKGpCpIGwyyAJesPTPIBhaSZDBMWJku4UFdI1/WLo8R7tJ/HljTaRBfen7fixZq6W3Y2JQdSI5y3vXVBQ=
In-reply-to: <479A67D5.2010509@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <620d63820801240438o369f5fddkc0596f5fef24ece3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f0eeea310801240444p67b6463cs2b460ce9d24b01e3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <620d63820801240453o23b07a16o88d4b1f6d72c8079@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47988E96.40408@xxxxxxxxx> <620d63820801241911u4f6f4bf0yf1d964b687287352@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080125080311.GJ10128@xxxxxxxxx> <620d63820801250118v34a55da1qb023a62753f7f626@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <479A67D5.2010509@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 25/01/2008, F. Fox <kitsune.or@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Kraktus wrote:
>> On 25/01/2008, Eugen Leitl <eugen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I just want to know if there is a technically feasible way of
>>> Use your brain. Packets have no EVIL bit to test for.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my suggestion is better than an RFC April Fools' Joke.
>
> Hehe, I like that: RFC for the EVIL bit. Designed to stop all manner of
> online crime. =xoD

Really, if I'd known my message was going to evoke this sort of response,
I'd have entitled it 'Directory-distributed variables for exit lists'.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Eugen Leitl
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: F. Fox
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Gregory Maxwell

References:
- Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Kraktus
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Nils Vogels
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Kraktus
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Paul Henning
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Kraktus
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Eugen Leitl
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: Kraktus
- Re: Child pornography blocking again
  - From: F. Fox

Prev by Author: Re: Child pornography blocking again
Next by Author: Re: Child pornography blocking again
Previous by thread: Re: Child pornography blocking again
Next by thread: Re: Child pornography blocking again
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread