RE: [squid-users] Need help with insert code into html body

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:14:36 -0500, Mike Marchywka <marchywka_at_hotmail.com>
wrote:
> [ lol, hotmail seems to insist on non-text email
> which the squid list sanely rejected I guess the
> setting is specific to a given machine since I had
> changed it before]
>
>> Subject: Re: [squid-users] Need help with insert code into html body
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Mike Marchywka <marchywka_at_hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How does compressin work? I thought someone said you could compress
>>> results in some squid versions?
>>
>> The official squid doesn't do that compression, it's maybe other
>> organization's release, or with an external module.
>> You could modify the source and implement that, go on, nobody will
blame
>> you.

gzip/deflate is a third-party eCAP plugin.
chunked is a transmission-level encryption of the content, not an
alteration.

 * the key thing with both is that the visitor gets what they asked for in
its original form.

ESI requires website administrator alterations.

 * the key thing here is that the user gets what they asked for as the
website operator designed it to be received.

It's not that we can't do content alteration with Squid it's that we
developers WON'T add it to the main code without very good reasons and
clear boundaries. It's a very popular for people to think they'll just
'fix' something by changing the content received.

There are a lot of legal, security and neutrality issues involved with
altering third-party copyright information without either the content
creator or the service users explicit consent.

You need to take a close look at your ethics when this idea pops up.

http://www.pcpd.org.hk/misc/pamela_chan/tsld003.htm
Content alteration violates the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th UN
international consumer rights, to varying degrees.

With the exception of Britain and Australia it's illegal to do this in
Democratic countries. They have the same digital-rights policy as China.
Prohibiting the transmission, viewing or storage of certain unspecified
content of 'unsavory' nature.
It's a regular sight for oppressive national dictatorships of various
forms to do content alteration, but even there its illegal for
non-government personnel to do.

If you have management pressure to do this here are a few prior examples:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/isp-content-f-1/
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/02/07/isps-may-face-liability-for-altering-email
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/12/canadian-isps-p/
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/02/09/isp-liability-limitations-and-exceptions-top-global-copyright-issues-in-2009/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/
http://www.macworld.com/article/132075/2008/02/netneutrality1.html
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/06/23/real-evil-isp-inserted-advertising/

And the things you avoid by not adding your own content to the pages:
http://www.out-law.com/page-753

>
> Well, adzapper may be a better example then. Presumably the adzapper
logic
> could get the target url and modify it. Right now it just replaces it
with
> a generated image saying "zapped."

Yes. AdZapper does a simple "access denied" when retrieving the adverts.
Providing its own custom error page which the browser displays instead of
whatever add content.

Squid does this easily with ACL and the deny_info directive.

Amos
Received on Sun Nov 29 2009 - 22:01:51 MST