[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 9:10 PM -0800 1/13/04, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>Some would consider such mailings a denial of service attack, I'd
>agree with them.
I was half-joking (but only half, how does one type half a smiley
face?). The main problem I see with this idea is that it would be too
easy for a popular webmaster to deliberately break their feed while
pointing the webmaster address at somebody else's inbox to launch a
DOS attack.
Don Park has a less aggressive suggestion
<http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPage.aspx?guid=b8d11d41-7b90-489f-8f68-bedb2b05ddd2>:
I believe the spec should be strict and implementations should be
liberal yet *visibly distinguish* good feeds from bad ones. Badly
formed feeds should be displayed with 'broken' icons and posts should
be displayed with a header or footer message clearly indicating that
the feed data is bad. This should reduce or at least limit
proliferation of bad feeds.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
