[opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV directory ?

[Discrete Dreamscape]

That's right. However, note what I implied: a blacklist would be worse by
misleading users even more, and it would discourage TPV usage in general.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tigro Spottystripes <
tigrospottystripes at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Discrete, in both ways you can have viewers that the users think can be
> trusted, but actually shouldn't
>
> On 29/4/2010 15:04, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> > A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable
> > than a list of untrusted ones.
> >
> > Weigh the two possibilities that would occur and their consequences,
> > given that the user is making assumptions, as you say:
> > - User believes viewers ON the whitelist are the ONLY ones that can be
> used
> > - User believes viewers NOT on the blacklist can ALL be used
> >
> > The latter is clearly not a situation that benefits users in any way.
> >
> > Discrete
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Henri Beauchamp <sldev at free.fr
> > <mailto:sldev at free.fr>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Nicky Perian wrote:
> >
> >     > +1
> >     > A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and
> >     > template to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get
> >     > past the login screens.
> >
> >     What you must understand is that the TPV policy is in no way a mean
> >     to prevent pirates from connecting to SL with hacked viewers (or
> >     through hacked proxies)...
> >     All what pirates have to do is to make sure these viewers impersonate
> >     an official (Linden) one (which is done very simply) and then they
> can
> >     pursue their illegal activity without even being spotted...
> >
> >     The TPV policy might give some better ground to LL to sue such
> pirates
> >     when they are lucky enough to spot and trace one, but the true aim of
> >     the TPV is to set acceptable standards for non-hacked viewers as well
> >     as to provide their user with some minimum confidence that such
> viewers
> >     will not try to steal their private data or put them into troubles.
> >
> >     As such, the blacklist would provide a much better service to the
> users
> >     by clearly identifying viewers which are *known* to be not compliant.
> >
> >     With the current directory, you only got a *partial* list of
> *possibly*
> >     compliant viewers (without any guarantee from LL) and know nothing at
> >     all about non-listed viewers.
> >
> >     Henri.
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> >     http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> >     Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> >     privileges
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEUEAREKAAYFAkvZ5A4ACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmXOBQCfcpptZyKU+Tr1uv+FsJVUj04s
> 6c8AmPF6F2bQpBxhVHCTLY4yrcC38sM=
> =Cbvj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20100429/1841d762/attachment-0001.htm