On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 16:35:57 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Net Nannies embody an advanced technology known as Artificial Stupidity (AS); >this same technology can be seen in rext to voice and voice to text features, >as well as in filters that block legitimate medical sites while failing to >block some pornographic sites. In this case I believe that the damage was >cause by the URL rewriting in GMU's email server. And, no, there is no way to >turn it off. > Where's rot13 when you need it? And in days of yore I was accustomed to seeing writers penetrate (euphemism) nannies by encrypting message bodies and simply appending the decryption keys in the clear.
>Well thought out security measures are a blessing; shooting from the hip is a >curse. Sort of like auditors, when they are good they are very, very good, and >when they are bad they are horrid. > It would be less computational cost for nannies to verify blessed URLs and pass them on untransformed. But then they wouldn't be able to track the recipients. Similarly for URL shorteners: what's the likely business model for providers of such services? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
