1997-01-30 - Re: Workaround for filtering/cybersitter

Header Data

From: wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (Mutatis Mutantdis)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 33d02610a21ef11b9bc17338b4be031be874608c56a293c1ce677684eee3dc0c
Message ID: <199701300223.VAA12817@unix.asb.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-30 02:01:48 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:01:48 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (Mutatis Mutantdis)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:01:48 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Workaround for filtering/cybersitter
Message-ID: <199701300223.VAA12817@unix.asb.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On 29 Jan 1997 17:33:41 -0500, you wrote:

>If I had experience with Netscape plugins and spare time, I'd
>try it myself.  But here's my proposed solution.  

>A plugin in Netscape intercepts all requests,  encrypt the URL
>with a pubkey algorithm, encode the string base64, send it as GET input to
>a proxy server.

>The proxy server decodes and decrypts the URL, gets the requested page,
>and returns it.  This beats out URL-based filtering.

Depends who is doing the filtering? If it's mom and dad keeping you from
looking at naughty pix, maybe.

If it's the gov't keeping you from looking at subversive sites, maybe not:
they'll go out of their way to block such proxies, and in some countries you
could get in hellish trouble for owning such a plug-in.

Rob







Thread