On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > >BUT, it would be useful to know where the legal blockage is happening. > > > > No argument there, but adding 452 doesn't aid that goal IMO. > I agree. I don't think 452 really adds any useful information, because I think “origin host” vs “other” distinction is not very interesting. I think it's useful to know who is censoring. > >As for #2, this feels like a job for an HTTP header, say > >'Blocker-for-legal-reasons'. It should take a list value in the case that > >there are multiple entities blocking a request, [...] > > How would that ever happen ? You get 451 back from the first censor > who doesn't explore the full chain to see if anybody else are > censoring ? > Hm... possibly right. Other opinions? > > Again: Have you asked any actual *censors* if they would be willing > > to fill out such a header ? > I'm pretty sure they would. Lots of ISPs hate it when they are prevented from serving their customers properly. Also, see the transparency reports published by all the big internet companies.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 15:08:38 UTC