[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fwd: ScanMail Message: To Sender Match eManager setting and take

Andrew Kelly writes....
> Tony Nugent wrote:
> > I would complain.  It is one thing to scan for and block/drop
> > viruses and spam (and "bad" attachments etc), but filtering content
> > with a "profanity" block in otherwise legitimate emails is
> > tantamount to unilateral censorship.  What right have they to do
> > that?
> Profanity blocking can be a very legitimate tool in the right
> circumstances. It's a good way to filter a great deal of
> pornographic spam if you have no other blockage in place. 

This assumes you don't want porn..................?

> In a standard office environment profanity can be an indicator
> of non-work related traffic (or at least inappropriate
> correspondance). There are any number of reasons to 
> filter profanity; some legitimate, some less so.

Well, if you are doing it for legal reasons, maybe.  But
just looking for words that shouldn't be used in formal 
letters (idiot, jerk, brainless, butt, joint, etc), that's just
a manager who is a "brainless jerk", or a sysop with WAY
too much time on their hands.

I've got a friend that works for a company like that.  It's
AMAZING what gets kicked out.  Suggested he "come down to the
beach and lets drink some beers."  "Beach" and "beer" got

> I pesonally don't give a hoot if people want to filter
> their mail or not. 
> But it bloody well should be a proper filter, shouldn't it?

Well.......if __I__ want to block what comes __IN__ to
my mail spool, that's one thing.
If my ISP wants to determine what comes __IN__ or goes __OUT__, then
that's clearly censorship, and I'd DEFINITELY get another ISP.

> I've had mail bounce off a profanity block because of
> the word tool. I couldn't believe it.
> There are wankers and there are wankers.
> Andy

-- Jay Crews
jpc jaycrews com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]