Hi Richard,
On 09/06/2011 06:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
IMO, this is a pretty strong argument against masking, given how low the
observed rate of buggy intermediaries is (~0.0017%) and how high the observed
rate of malware propagation is.
I'm not sure what you're comparing there. Can you elaborate?
In fact, I'm not sure I get the malware argument. Malware
authors are also free to obfuscate or mask their stuff,
when both sides of the conversation but not the intermediaries
are controlled as would be the case here. Or maybe I'm
missing something?
I personally think the masking thing is pretty ugly. But I
have to (reluctantly) admit I think it does what its
supposed to do. At this stage I think it comes down to
either doing the masking or not using port 80.
Ta,
S.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf