Re: rethinking caching
Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:21:25 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Koen Holtman wrote:
> Benjamin Franz:
> >
> >On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Koen Holtman wrote:
> >
> >> Not that I expect many providers to implement such a filtering
> >> mechanism, most would treat web spoofing like they treat news spamming
> >> and mail forging now: forbid it in the terms of service agreement and
> >> deal appropriately with any found violations.
> >
> >Ummmm...Considering the immense magnitude of both spamming and forging
> >today, this is not a convincing argument for leaving it to local option.
>
> Hmm, forging does not happen that often AFAIK.
It does happen that often. I am engaged in cancelling a large (in excess
of 2000 articles) combination spam/forgery (with the intent I think of
mail bombing the forgery victim) right now. Drop into
news.admin.net-abuse.* to appreciate just how bad it has gotten. We are
getting daily reports of forgeries with intent to cause harm.
[...]
> >On large systems with thousands of customers with many special cases, it
> >would be a logistical nightmare even for experienced admins.
>
> Not if the Location header filter is user-id based as described
> before. Experienced admins could create such a filter in a few hours,
> if it is not already a standard option of future 1.1 http servers.
>
> In other words, I don't share your pessimism.
I think we will just have to agree to diagree on this. Among other things
it does not address the practice of 'sub-letting' web space. A number of
sites (including www.xmission.com) allow this as well.
--
Benjamin Franz
"_Never_ underestimate the power of human stupidity."