IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 17 November 2014 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEED91ACDFC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:44:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id utsKL1BNECi3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 698451ACE1C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 14:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23599 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2014 22:43:55 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 17 Nov 2014 22:43:55 -0000
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:43:33 -0000
Message-ID: <20141117224333.17578.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-nottingham-safe-hint-05.txt> (The "safe" HTTP Preference) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <546A7552.7090500@dougbarton.us>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WBBzuvrsm19svb00w0koLM4FYSU
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:44:01 -0000

>... and as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, all of the popular 
>search engines have cookie-based options with a much more fine-grained 
>approach than "on" or "off." So clearly there is a demand for more 
>granularity, because *they are already doing it.*

Huh.  I was under the impression that Google's search engine, where
the SafeSearch option offers only a single bit, was fairly popular.
Ditto YouTube which has a one bit Safety mode. You learn something new
every day. 

See http://www.google.com/preferences

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email