OK, I've been adequately chastised on this subject so now it is time to put my original comments more into context.
First a couple caveats: 1. The filter my net-nannies have on aren't blasting Darren, it is set to just drop the offending e-mail (whether or not it is actually offensive), and 2. I was not offended by the original post from Phil, nor by the plethora of follow-on off-track posts. <rant> I agree with all the people out there who disagreed with me regarding where the blocking needs to be done - to an extent. By all means, if my e-mail server is being used by a spammer to blast stuff out to the rest of the list, by all means, cut me off. However, that being said, there are over 30 responses back to Darren's original post telling us to knock it off due to the problems they are causing him. How many of these follow-on posts have generated additional filter messages back to him? We all know the filters are out there, and that many of them are bombarding Darren with garbage. We need to be policing ourselves better so as to attempt to minimize the impact on him and the others on the list. That was the context of my original post - if people in the inside can't watch their language so as to not trip the nannies, maybe Darren needs to give them a (not-go-gentle) reminder. Yes, I know that the stupidest of the filters (like the one mentioned below) won't be happy but a little common sense on the part of the listers will go a long way. </rant> I'll drop it now. No flames, please ;-) Rex Pommier, Rex R. wrote on 4/24/2006 3:25 PM: > Sorry, Gil, but I have to disagree with you here. I have no say over > the spam/porn/naughty word filter in use here, > You can complain to the people managing your email system. If that doesn't work, don't subscribe to mailing lists from your work address. Simple. I decided 9 years ago that using an employer's address for anything other than direct company-related business was just a pain. That's because I had to notify 200 people and resubscribe to a dozen mailing lists on my previous job switch. The second time, I decided that had to be the last time. I was still getting email to my USC address 3 years after leaving USC. About the same for my next email address. Never again. Content filters are evil. They probably started as spam filters for incompetent admins. I don't want my email screened by someone else's idea of what's offensive. BTW, another part of this thread was in reference to stupid filters which find offense embedded in larger words. As the listowner for ISPF-L, my source of irritation is filters which reject sample REXX or ISPF panel code looking like this: *** = value where * is the 24th letter of the English alphabet. That's standard sample code. The best ones of course are the moron filters which rejected Lionel's XMITIP announcements because they didn't like his last name. For that one, I posted an [ADMIN] message suggesting that people get their email admins to bypass the filters for mailing lists such as ISPF-L so that they don't miss postings. /Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
