On Nov 14, 2014, at 11:07 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja(_at_)bogus(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 11/14/14 11:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi Joe,
On 11/13/14, 7:19 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
Hi, mnot has already heard the following concerns from us at CDT about
this spec, but we want to make sure that these are part of the IETF
last call comment record.
* The "Safe" preference is not only a preference but a signal. It
signals user vulnerability; when activated, the header would signal
a user's potentially vulnerable status not only to site operators
who intend to reply in good faith, but to those that will operate in
bad faith and also to every intermediary on-path that could read the
preference request.
While it could be the case that a user is vulnerable (a term that is a
bit vague), it is also the case that many other users might choose to
not want to receive content that is considered in some way "unsafe".
One could even imagine "Safe" becoming a default setting.
Hi, I'm a browser, and I'd like to receive only harmonious content.
Hi, browser, server here. Here’s some pictures of nudes. I guess this is OK
with you because they are works of art created by 15th century ninja turtles.