> I mean, it isn't as if anything new would have to be added to
> m0n0wall, nor would there be any kind of security or overhead
> problems. In fact I can't see that anything at all would change for a
> user choosing not to serve any files in this manner?
> Please explain to me what I'm missing here?
> P.S. About binary files in XML: I'm not aware of a standardized way of
> doing this (as in "part of the XML standard"), but I guess a simple UU
> encoding or similar would do the trick? (Nice idea by the way, even if
> it could be said to be a bit "dirty".)
I'm not saying I'm for it, but I think this is the only way to do it without
changing the way mono works now... think I mentioned before, the httpd in
monowall doesn't serve ANYTHING except index.php.
Making it serve an image would require changing that. IF however, the
index.php could generate the image from code stored in the config (not that
I'm advocating this!) then at least you wouldn't have to change the httpd -
which I'm assuming is the way it is for a reason.