W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Status code for censorship?

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:51:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfKvqYmXUavFKacSAHCJnugx2fjCewC=yiAMWwYi1Tk6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Quite honestly, while 403 would probably work just fine, I think a
dedicated status code in the 5xx range would make for a better approach, if
only from an informational point of view.

HTTP/1.1 512 Service Blocked

Sends a very clear message and makes the fact that the service is being
censored, as opposed to merely being technically unavailable, quite clear.
On Jun 9, 2012 10:09 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Check out
> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/09/1927246/an-http-status-code-for-censorship
>
> The thinking about returning 403 when you’re forbidden to follow a link
> seems sound to me.  This idea is superficially appealing; is it deeply
> broken in some way that’s not obvious?  -Tim
>
Received on Sunday, 10 June 2012 18:51:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 June 2012 18:51:58 GMT