Subject:
|
Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 01:40:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 17:14:58 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Jasper Janssen writes:
>
> A firewall must exist (at least in part) on a machine that serves the internet
> at large. Like I said before, a couple posts ago: "you're defining webserver
> differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling semantics with you."
>
> IMHO, Webserver=Machine that serves files to the web.
A firewall is generally a machine on the internet at large, yes. The
things protected by it aren't, in the sense that some things are
filtered out by said firewall.
A firewall is logically, and usually physically, not a webserver, or a
fileserver, or any server at all.
The firewall is merely a device, sortof an expanded router, that sits
between two network intertfaces, taking a look at all packets going in
one of its network interfaces, determines if they are compliant with
all the rules, and then spitting the same packet out the other
interface.
The firewall, as a logical thing, simply is not something that
receives or originates packets, it merely transmits them.
"The Web" is defined as everything that comes through HTTP. That means
ftp is not part of the web, nor is news, nor mail, nor anything else
except HTTP.
You may not want to "quibble semantics", but when your definitions are
quite simply and clearly different from the rest of the world, things
get really unclear.
I think the main problem is that you are insisting on seeing things in
the physical sense, and getting confused because you don't know
exactly what is going on (which is no shame, just means you're not an
IP (in the Internet Protocol sense) geek).
> > Windmills need to be charged sometimes.
>
> Fair enough. But tilt at windmills that don't grind our flour, please. :)
> <yes, that is mildly tounge-in-cheek>
Personally, I feel that those are exactly the ones to tilt at.
*shrug*, let's agree to disagree on that.
>
> > > > > > > Certainly it is the originators right to determine "intent to publish",
> > > > > > > not Joe Public.
>
> <grumble> If I didn't KNOW that the web is well-known for propagating
> misunderstandings, I'd accuse you of deliberately mis-reading what I said.
>
> The originator is who demonstrates intent to publish.
Yes.
> OBVIOUSLY "publish" is
> something defined by common rules. Maybe my problem in getting this idea
> across is that I keep assuming we're operating in the same linguistic
> framework.
We are.
> In plain terms: Society defines what "publish" means, but the originator of a
Yes.
> work is the only one who can legitimately (IANAL) publish that work. If you
Yes.
> dump a bunch of leaflets over town, that's fairly clearly publishing them. If
Clearly.
> I dump a bunch of your leaflets over town without your permission, it's
> illegal/wrong/whatever. If you dump a bunch of leaflets over town and can
Clearly indeed.
> reasonably demonstrate that it was a mistake, then you didn't 'intend to
> publish'. Is that clearer?
Maybe, depending on definition of "reasonably".
But you weren't talking about _demonstrating_ intent to publish, you
were talking about _determining_ intent to publish. And you never
clarified that. In the absence of any other clues, I have to go by
what you write, not by what I think you may have meant.
> I would really like to hear why you think that illegal means can't result in
> something being on the web (which, as far as I can tell you think means 'is
> published') as easily as legal means.
When it's on a public webserver it is published. When it is there via
legal means there's intent-to-publish. When it is there via illegal
means there is not (necessarily) intent-to-publish.
My position in a nutshell.
> > Oh, great. So just because "everyone" in the "corporate" world uses a
> > blatantly illegal tactic, we should be happy to see lego do it.
>
> Did I say "happy"? Did I anywhere imply "happy"? No. Resigned, yes - happy,
> no. For myself, if I am going to slam a company for blatantly illegal
> tactics, there's a lot bigger fish out there to fry.
Quite possibly. I don't happen to be personally involved with most of
those.
Jasper
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes: <snipped Q&D explanation of firewalls & so forth> (...) I will bow to your expertise. Yes, I did (instinctively) take your reference to webserver to mean a physical box - that's probably because if (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
|
| <snipped .admin.general - this is getting obviously into the realm of just (...) A firewall must exist (at least in part) on a machine that serves the internet at large. Like I said before, a couple posts ago: "you're defining webserver differently. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
