Re: [451] #80: Distinguishing intermediaries from origins

> On 24 Aug 2015, at 5:07 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:
> --------
> In message <>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
>>> I doubt that would happen in reality, there are big incentives to lie.
>>> Leave it at 451 and recommend that the body contains useful details.
>> It can (and hopefully will) regardless. The discussion here was to see 
>> whether it'd be useful to make the distinction clear for automated 
>> clients (e.g., Chilling Effects, robots); the response has been "yes, 
>> that would be useful."
> I'm sure they would find it useful.
> But only if the censors return 452 to begin with.
> Did anybody ask them if they're going to ?

Yeah, that question has come up before, and it's a good one. 

I suspect there will be some jurisdictions where ISPs and other network providers would use such a status code, because prohibiting them from doing so would be seen as overreaching. I also suspect there would be many jurisdictions where this wouldn't be the case, and it wouldn't be used at all.

A good part of the motivation here AIUI is to keep the 451 signal "clean" so that ISP censorship doesn't get confused with origin censorship. That only requires that network providers *don't* use 451, not that they proactively use 452 (or any other technical means). 


Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 07:12:33 UTC