21–30 of 516 posts
One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.
[flagged]
And then decide whoever used them had malicious intent?
One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.
[flagged]
I would argue, without any evidence, that when terms are used and embraced, they lose their negative connotations. Because in the end, you want to fight the negativity they represent, not the term itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Do some people just mentally insert the word “people” after every occurrence of the words “black” or “white” they happen across in their daily lives? And then decide whoever used them had malicious intent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not to mention more descriptive. If you hear the term "allowlist" or "denylist" it is immediately obvious and self-explanatory, with no prior context needed. Leaving aside any other reasons, they're just better names.
One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.
At that point it almost sounds like we're doing "peering" agreements at the IP level. Would it make sense to have a class of ISPs that didn't peer with these "bad" network participants?