Re: Hope this one's long enough! (fwd)

[allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx (Allan Woods)]

While I too am annoyed sometimes by getting a message caught in the
gill-net message filter, I think it is interesting to note that it
could be looked on as a challenge.

The filters are a changing maze.
They are not simply triggered by message length.
They are an attempt to demonstrate what software CANNOT do - which
is to exercise judgement.
The filters are triggered by certain "forbidden" words.
These words are generally the operational "commands" to the listserver.
Therefor it is not possible to mention a command word in a message
without getting "tagged out" (Buzzz! Penalty. 10 yards.)
Quoting too much "header info" from the original message will
also get you a "tap on the shoulder."

Think of it as a game of Battleship.  B-10  miss.

The more troubling questions are the ones which relate directly to
the issues raised by the recently passed, but as yet unsigned,
telecommunications bill which has extensive censorship provisions.

I mention this because I wonder sometimes about what "filtered"
messages do NOT get forwarded, and why...

Also, if we didn't have the filters, just how many "extra" messages
would we really have to endure?

And, will we soon have an environment where EVERY message, EVERY post,
EVERY web page - and heaven forbid, even e-mail! - will be tested by
a government mandated decency filter, political correctness filter,
pornography filter, subversiveness filter, ...?

We know how well these filters work.  Discussions about the effectiveness
of mammograms were censored on AOL because the filter encountered
the dreaded word "breast."

What kind of soap was in this box anyway?

Should I double-up on my medication?

allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx


------------------------------