Re: Reviving discussion on error code 451

451 may not entail "absolutely forbidden", it's reasonable to imagine
a case where a government official (or foreign visitor) could have a
special login to penetrate the Great Firewall.

-V

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 18/12/2014 12:21 a.m., Virgil Griffith wrote:
>>> What this doesn’t cover is a workplace filtering out Facebook
>>> because
>> it’s a time-waster. What it also doesn’t cover is opt-in filtering
>> services, such as parents might get so their kids don’t see
>> inappropriate content.
>>
>> You could cover this case of "non-legally-compelled blocking" with
>> error code 511.  It's a non-standard use, but it's the closest
>> thing I can think of.
>
> 511 is designed to be part of authentication. There are potentially
> tools out there which see 511 and kick off out-of-band authentication
> procedures without user interaction.
>
> Mixing the "absolute forbidden" meaning of 451 into 511 just creates
> confusion.
>
> Amos
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUkXz1AAoJELJo5wb/XPRjKe8H/j2EEK13ubbAaqlC7gcytF7r
> 32jSpskDwcX1Lh+LxJzJf18azDYwYLswfqbnbEbmKwDgVnrfzmy0d55irie5EfYY
> S/h7beDkECUnd5fSWZ1h5UHGJD4tAy2kV3xpd/nfsZlET5IcQksQLcy4ZOc32yQ4
> 3SXk6BJN4baEFIr5ILgBcOf13erEyokjukRUyyvANM65FZjHWEoXeMhggAY+P3ki
> s3ZTsJ69Xrm+rZ1XEMk/granGZH28NMpquTa8zPCvjVrN1rf0JGq/DCUTfU1Si+V
> FhuaTRWq77Vm0AYGX1b4/Zdo2/ZUWz5cY0Rx680gtNy5u1bpRhnNN7JhBx6C+kE=
> =e1qB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 01:19:42 UTC