RE: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
william(at)elan.net wrote: The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to access the site in the first place; lots of these phishing scams either promise a free something or say that the account will be de-activated, none of which exist. The reason to visit a web site never existed in reality. As far as the HTTP 1.1 issue for legit web sites hosted on the same IP, although I do agree that a link to the original page would be nice, it still is an un-acceptable disruption IMHO. Besides, it might prove difficult to provide, as the HTML content would need to be dynamic based on the domain, we're talking decapsulating the traffic to extract the domain name and embed it into the HTML code to provide the link.
Stephen J. Wilcox Transparent caching has done this for a long time, the difference is it only works on traffic passing through the adjacent router, with this you can pull traffic from all over your network back to a single cache
But this is not caching: the content is not the same as the original. Michel.
* michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote: The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to access the site in the first place; lots of these phishing scams either promise a free something or say that the account will be de-activated, none of which exist. The reason to visit a web site never existed in reality.
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The same reasoning can apply to those sites. -- Niels. -- Today's subliminal thought is:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
* michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote: The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to access the site in the first place; lots of these phishing scams either promise a free something or say that the account will be de-activated, none of which exist. The reason to visit a web site never existed in reality.
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The same reasoning can apply to those sites.
some of that is done in certain localities, for instance, I believe singapore still requires ISP's to block their monthly 'top 100' sites... in general, it's my belief, that folks using the web should make that censorship decision for themselves, gov'ts or ISP's shouldn't make that call. Unfortunately, gov'ts often like to impose their will's on their citizens.
participants (3)
-
Christopher L. Morrow
-
Michel Py
-
Niels Bakker