Netscape, Mosaic, and other goodies.

> > > The field is User-Agent. However, blocking access to users of Navigator 
> > > isn't a particularly useful thing to do. If you must do something, why 
> > > not modify your GET handler to add a header to the start of all html 
> > > pages informing people of the problem, and suggesting alternatives. 
> > 
> > Great idea! I'm sure there is a cypherpunk on this list willing to write a 
> > patch to NCSA HTTPd to get the job done, in a configurable manor of 
> > course so that a template.html would be 'inserted' at the top of every 
> > document sent out to the specified browser. Any takers?
> 
> No need. Simply add
> 
> <meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="1;URL=netscape-warning.html">
> 
> to the start of your page. Netscape browsers will be redirected.

Are you sure Netscape browsers are the only ones that currently implement 
this tag? Other browsers will be implementing it soon enough I'm 
sure. I think the only fool-proof way of doing it is at the webserver.

Anyway, isn't 5 million bux a little too much for the government to give 
Netscape for the security improvements? I would think that for less than a 
million a group of programmers could be rounded up to create a stable 
multi-platform web navigator with VRML, MPEG, Audio, Postscript, and a 
zillion other features built in. :)

It's funny how one day we are raving about how great Netscape is, and the 
next day we hate them. If we aren't pleased with a particular piece of 
software, instead of argueing about it we should just go and make one 
that we are pleased with. Using the many libraries available such as MPEG, 
GIF, JPEG for example and releasing it under the GNU agreement is the way 
to go. Or perhaps we should just back the original browser, NCSA Mosaic. 
With some improvements it could once again be the best browser on the net.

I suppose I'm not clear about the implications of these eskrow keys... 
just because the government is supporting it, and Netscape will be 
implementing it doesn't mean that we have to use it. Is it against the 
law to encrypt data (using your own method) and send it over the Internet?
I don't think so.

...

...
> It's funny how one day we are raving about how great Netscape is, and the 
> next day we hate them. If we aren't pleased with a particular piece of 
> software, instead of argueing about it we should just go and make one 
> that we are pleased with. Using the many libraries available such as MPEG, 
> GIF, JPEG for example and releasing it under the GNU agreement is the way 
> to go. Or perhaps we should just back the original browser, NCSA Mosaic. 
> With some improvements it could once again be the best browser on the net.

Isn't it strange that the same people on this list who have been giving
abuse to those of us who have been warning you about Netscape - are now
coming to see that we were right all along?

My point is NOT what you may think it is (i.e., that we were right and
you were wrong).  My point is that people on this list are a little bit
too quick to jump to conclusions.  Some of you are now marching off in
opposition to Netscape based on a rumor about what someone from Netscape
said and a report of a grant by the NSA.  This sort of knee jerk reaction
is often inappropriate.

As to the idea of going with NCSA's mosaic, I'm all for it.  In fact,
that's the browser I've been using all along - mostly because it comes
in source form so I can modify it for my less-popular operating
environment, because there's no fee for its use, and because it's not a
hyped up commercial venture with a stock having a price to earnings ratio
of 7,000.

-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236