3 ms·
>The elephant in the room is that many networks need to have content filtering First of all, we're talking about domain filtering, not content filtering. And
by rndgermandude 7y ago
>The elephant in the room is that many networks need to have content filtering
First of all, we're talking about domain filtering, not content filtering.
And no, they want domain filtering, hardly anybody needs it, and there are better solutions than NXDOMAIN, such as actual content filters.
>and you are proposing nothing useful.
Why would I need to provide "something useful"? mozilla already described the many ways this can be disabled, from browser preferences, to automated checks for known disable-me domains, etc.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoI need domain filtering: if the domain serves malware I want to block it, not just the known malware coming from it. If a domain serves porn, I want to block it on my kids computers (and mine) not just the content that is recognisable as porn. If a domain is used by malware I want to block it, and probably use the domain to determine the server, and block that too (too because the domain can move IP).
- nybble41 7y agoAll of that can be implemented on the client (e.g. as a browser extension) without breaking the Internet. That's the only reliable way to do it anyway. MITM DNS filtering is easily bypassed and only effective against lazy malware.
- the8472 7y ago> If a domain serves porn, I want to block it on my kids computers (and mine) FWIW, my entire peergroup grew up without anyone installing content filters on their computers, and porn was already widely available back then.