Re: rethinking caching

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* 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 allow this as well.

Benjamin Franz
"_Never_ underestimate the power of human stupidity."

Received on Monday, 18 December 1995 09:17:08 UTC