Re: Content filtering

["Perry E. Metzger" <perry () piermont com>]

sedwards () sedwards com writes:
> Several of my clients are "adult providers."
>
> Suprisingly, they would prefer to be in an easily filtered domain like
> "*.sex" so they don't have to worry about legal action from access by
> minors.
>
> Since the ".sex" top level domain is unlikely to happen, HTTPX would be
> viable if it is supported by all browsers.

Ahem.

There is already a standard for marking pages as having "objectionable 
content" (see the W3C web site for details), and if browser makers and 
others wanted to use it, they could.

Wasting another port on this seems less than useful in that light.

.pm


> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Garbrick, Randy wrote:
>
> > If you have an interest in the problem of filtering explicit content on
> > the web, please check out this internet draft.  It proposes using
> > designated ports other than port 80 to provide explicit content, thereby
> > making filtering a much simpler problem.  Obviously, this would not
> > provide a complete solution, it would only add an additional inexpensive
> > tool to help with the problem.
> >
> >
> > http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garbrick-shtp-00.txt
>
> Thanks in advance,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Edwards      sedwards () sedwards com      Voice: +1-760-723-2727 PST
> Newline            Pager: +1-760-740-1220           Fax: +1-760-731-3000