From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Message Hash: 9f747c85b675475fa3e81aeb84e3c8021c0ebf9baa3df4f693a4c6e99203e2ce
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960716172533.5147A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Reply To: <v01510103ae1062fbecc1@[204.62.128.229]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-17 18:45:52 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 02:45:52 +0800
From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 02:45:52 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Washington Post -- "Block but Verify"
In-Reply-To: <v01510103ae1062fbecc1@[204.62.128.229]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960716172533.5147A-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> [An editorial in today's Washington Post, about blocking software and the
> CyberWire Dispatch that Brock and I sent out earlier this month. --Declan]
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1996-07/15/006L-071596-idx.html
>
> Editorial: "BLOCK, BUT VERIFY"
>
> Monday, July 15 1996; Page A18
> The Washington Post
>
>
<SNIP>
> read. One pitfall, though, as Messrs. McCullough and Meeks observe, is
> the commercially inspired reluctance of many of these producers of
> software to specify exactly what they are blocking. Though
A user-selectable menu would be, umm, interesting ... just how could one
describe, in terms offensive to absolutely no one, what one's product is
offering to block?
-r.w.
Return to July 1996
Return to “Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>”