On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Bryan Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How happy are you with DanGuardian? Is it a useful filter? > > We use it internally w/in our office and we are happy w/ it. We use it > locally to "eat our own dog food." By default it blocks a lot if not > most content on the Internet, including stuff that doesn't seem > objectionable at all.
Yeah, that's one of my concerns. I looked a little bit at DG documentation a few days ago, as I was fighting with Squid's memory usage, to understand how resource intensive it is, and how it works. And in the back of my mind the question was - is this the right tool? When you mention it blocks most content, I'm less than thrilled. A filter that is too blunt will actually backfire -- will be too easy to false-match and also easy to workaround. Users will learn something but perhaps not what we want. A smarter filter, one that does not give all/most users an incentive to find workarounds, is a much healthier solution. But I'll get deep into it later, more likely in the 0.6 cycle. Now that you mention you're using it in a real life setup, what does top tell you about its memory usage? > I think dans is essential because it will keep the adults from using up > all the bandwidth to look at porn. the secondary reason, to protect kids > is also important ;) Noble causes indeed! cheers,, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list Server-devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
