Re: Right to privacy & client info strings

[Shaun Tancheff]

On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 14:17, Derek Robert Price wrote:
> ATD Hubbard, John wrote:
> 
> > Failing to provide these sorts of options could conceivably result in 
> > people trafficking lot of semi-standard, hacked versions of cvs that 
> > don't encroach upon their privacy by default. Having seen public 
> > reaction to some similar mechanism that other vendors built into some 
> > of their products, my feeling is that this type of client behavior 
> > must be treated in a very careful sort of way, to avoid losing users.
> >

My personal solution was to add an optional protocol and trigger to
information via a new CVSROOT/config option in the same way that
SystemAuth and other such options are handled.

A protocol for version info would also be a nice to have in the core
dist.

I have template code to do this at work, simply because we have a large
heterogeneous environment and support can be difficult. I also have no
problem with servers denying access to unverified clients in this case.


> I'm also talking about some pretty simple information.  Client name & 
> version perhaps.  Platform I can see as invasion of privacy.
> 
> As near as I know, all the web browsers send a client name and version 
> as part of the HTTP protocol.  I haven't heard any objections to that.
> 
> Derek
> 
> -- 
>                 *8^)
> 
> Email: derek@ximbiot.com
> 
> Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
> -- 
> I will not show off.
> I will not show off.
> I will not show off...
> 
>           - Bart Simpson on chalkboard, _The Simpsons_