[97340] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network Level Content Blocking (UK) for people who cant be bothered
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Fri Jun 8 07:09:16 2007
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:25:28 +0100
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
Cc: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
"Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>,
nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <466929F1.7050305@uk.clara.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
ssshhhhhhh
David Freedman wrote:
> Its too late, you've already admitted that the data exists and can be
> captured.
>
> This is always where it starts...
>
> Dave.
>
>
> Leigh Porter wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/07, Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since only port 80 is passed through the filter then of course
>>>> there are
>>>> all manor of things you could do to circumvent the filter and this
>>>> will
>>>> of course always be the case as people will use whatever they can
>>>> to get
>>>> what they want. After all, all yuo really need to do in order to
>>>> get all
>>>> the dodgy material you want is to subscribe to a decent USENET service
>>>> and get it all from that.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth though it works well for what it is and we
>>>> certainly
>>>> get a few hits on it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you been asked by the Dibble for the squid's server log yet? It's
>>> the obvious next step - if you had a URL request blocked, obviously
>>> you were where you shouldn't have been. You're either with us...or
>>> you're with the terrorists.
>>
>>
>> I actually removed the code in Squid that logs so it's impossible to
>> log without significant development work ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Leigh Porter
>>
>>
