> On Nov 14, 2014, at 11:07 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Hi, browser, server here. Here’s some pictures of nudes. I guess this is OK with you because they are works of art created by 15th century ninja turtles.