Re: [cobalt-users] email scanning

[Rik Thomas <rikt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you had left my entire email instead of trimming all of my
contents,(however I do appreciate you trimming, this list needs a lesson
in it!)  I said that I did not recommend doing that and that you couldn't
properly distinguish between breast and breast, dick and Dick Ebersole.
Even below I said there is no logic to it and to program any logic into it
would be a tremendous strain on resources something no raq product could
do effectively with any appreciable load of mail.

X-Stop's product does not cancel the email by default though it will just
place xxxx's over the offending word.  I think the technology works
extremely well and it is opt-in, so those requesting it have a very
serious reason for having it.

Opt-in filtering is very good.  There are many family and work situations
warrant content filtering.  It is smart business practice for companies
and some family and personal situations demand this.  I personally, 6
months ago, was totally against any type of content "censorship" until I
spoke with local clergymen, parents and businesses.  It is not a
babysitting tool like I had originally thought.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Dom Latter wrote:

> Rik Thomas wrote:
> > 
> > procmail would work, you would have to use your system procmailrc to do it
> > and it would add a tremendous load on your servers if you are pushing any
> > appreciable amount of mail.  The recipe would be a hairy beast and then
> > you get into limited logic, breast or chicken breast which is bad and not.
> 
> With or without special exemptions for Bible and Shakespeare quotes, 
> one wonders?  Medical texts - are they allowed?  Does it understand 
> Rot 13?  Is "fsck" being used as a swear word or as part of, say,  
> Linux server administration discussion?
> 
> These things (email filters) are complete carp.  I know of one
> company that installed one and configured it so that *all* recipients - 
> including those outside their domain - got sent an automated email
> telling them that "a piece of email entitled such-and-such has been 
> filtered out by the spam detector".  So, I got sent an unwanted email
> by a spam filter.  Ironic.  Of course, if there had been another 
> company on the original list of recipients of that collection of jokes
> with the same braindead configuration, and the title of the original
> mail had contained "offensive language", the automated reply would have 
> generated another automated reply....
> 
> Excuse my rant.  These things don't work, are easily circumvented, 
> and have no place in adult life.
> 
> Now, *what* was the problem that this "solution" was meant to address?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cobalt-users mailing list
> cobalt-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.cobalt.com/mailman/listinfo/cobalt-users
> 

Rik Thomas rikt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.delaware.net
(p) 302.736.5515