On 11/14/14 11:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Joe, > > On 11/13/14, 7:19 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> >> Hi, mnot has already heard the following concerns from us at CDT about >> this spec, but we want to make sure that these are part of the IETF >> last call comment record. >> >> * The "Safe" preference is not only a preference but a signal. It >> signals user vulnerability; when activated, the header would signal >> a user's potentially vulnerable status not only to site operators >> who intend to reply in good faith, but to those that will operate in >> bad faith and also to every intermediary on-path that could read the >> preference request. > > While it could be the case that a user is vulnerable (a term that is a > bit vague), it is also the case that many other users might choose to > not want to receive content that is considered in some way "unsafe". > One could even imagine "Safe" becoming a default setting. Hi, I'm a browser, and I'd like to receive only harmonious content. > Eliot >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature