First of all I'm sorry if the theory in my question is not correct or too lazy.
Living in Syria, so many sites are blocked "the foolish way" I think. Some examples (always using
- http://blogspot.com is blocked, while http://blogspot.com.au is not, so I can open any blogspot without even having to use a proxy server.
- any webpage with an http url that contains the word
proxyis blocked, for example: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4986329/understanding-proxy-in-jquery is blocked just because it contains the work "proxy" in the slug.
- http://ar.wikipedia.org is blocked (the Arabic Wikipedia is blocked for political reasons).
However, the thing that makes me so confused is that although http://ar.wikipedia.org is blocked, https://ar.wikipedia.org is not blocked (or more acurately, not matching any foolish blocking criteria), which poses the following question:
If the ISP is blocking based on request URL, it should catch that the request header contains
host: ar.wikipedia.org, no matter what the protocol is, and therefore stop that request. However, this isn't happening apparently. What seems to be happening is that it's catching the response's location and blocking is happening based on it. But when the request/response are through
https, the response header is not readable except by the browser, and therefore the ISP is not able to check and block.
Is what I'm supposing right or am I just a fool trying to imagine how the world works?
If I'm a fool, please feel free to delete the question. If I'm right, then I have the ultimate question:
Is the ISP fool for not using request header to decide to block or not, or there's some techincal difficulty that prevents it from doing so?