[ Please don't Cc: public replies to me. ] Christoph Lameter: > Running a web-broser on the machine may also be insecure. The web browser is a risk to the user, the daemon to the whole system. (ls may also be insecure.) > Which means in turn that the webservers will be forced by the proposed > approach to serve links with .gz suffixes. This is what I object strongly > against because many web-browswers will not be able to handle those suffixes > without special configuration. The web browsers will not see any difference at all. When web browsers get the files via a web browser, they do not care about the suffix of the filename. The HTTP protocol contains the Content-Type header that tells them what type the document is. It doesn't matter what the URL looks like. The web server tells the browser what the type of the document is. The web server uncompresses the file before sending it to the client, if necessary. (We need to configure the web servers to recognize .html.gz as HTML and uncompress it before sending it. We've already done that.) Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. -- Please read <http://www.iki.fi/liw/mail-to-lasu.html> before mailing me. Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.
Description: PGP signature