| 1 |
On 10:05 Wed 19 Nov , Qian Qiao wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 09:54, Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > On 19 Nov 2008, at 04:06, Albert Hopkins wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> ... |
| 7 |
> >> Why do you want to do this? ... I don't understand why. |
| 8 |
> >> What is your justification for doing that? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > To prevent his kids from watching YouPorn. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Stroller. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In that case, isn't putting |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 127.0.0.1 ADDRESSES_TO_BE_BLOCKED |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> into /etc/hosts easier? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Or just set up a proxy. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Joe |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> -- |
| 25 |
> There are 3 kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and |
| 26 |
> those who can't. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
No, perhaps not, considering the fact that there are so many sites with |
| 29 |
pron. Maintaining such a massive hosts file is a disaster and worse still |
| 30 |
the solution is not fullproof. But then, FWIW such problems seldom have |
| 31 |
foolproof solutions. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The idea of proxy is very valid(in particular the transparent proxy |
| 34 |
implementation), mixed with mime-type handling could do the trick. What |
| 35 |
complicates the situation slightly is that it is to be done for just one |
| 36 |
user. I don't personally use proxy so not sure about the implementation |
| 37 |
details. Perhaps somebody with the usage experience can provide a |
| 38 |
detailed solution, once we are sure as to the reason for the question. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Michael Moore <mikem.unet(at)gmail.com> |
| 44 |
About *NIX: If its not fun, why do it? |
Archives