[log in to unmask] wrote:
> It is useless to apply technical solutions to a social problem.
>
> The problem is that filtering software like that *does not work*.  And
> if it does, it works *too well*.


With all due respect (and some trepidation), I disagree.  You can add me to
another of those people that would like a filtering mechanism based on a
word list that appeared in the body of a message.

My preference would be to have those messages sent to an Editor, but I can
see how outright filtering could be useful too.   In other words, a header
tag similar to the Filter keyword:

* MsgFilter= <Quiet:> Action, word, word, word....

where Action can be either Editor | Filter
The use of the Quiet: would supress an automessage back to the poster

Actually, it would be useful if you could use the same keyword twice, once
with a list of words where the Action is "Editor", and once where the Action
is "Filter".



> A certain large aerospace firm has subscribers on the SAS-L list, and
> I would (as postmaster) get bounced mail from their corporate mail hub,
> notifying me that 'such and such' a message had been bounced as spam.

Why would it go to the postmaster, unless the offending address was invalid?
Seems you would want the auto-message to go to the poster.


> And as soon as the users learn that 'bleep you!' is not acceptable,
> they will try 'BlEeP yOu!' and 'B L E E P you!' and 'B.L.E.E.P.Y.O.U!'
> and all similar variants.  Or rather - the users that wouldn't have
> been deterred by a simple "Hey cool it" note from the list owner.
> This quickly leads to an escalation of hostilities....

True, but this is going to happen in either case.  At least with a filter
mechanism, it happens off-list....


> And of course, you *will* find out that your filter has false positives
> at a most inopportune time - like when a Very Important Person has
> their mail bounced because they try to post a missive regarding the
> best way to keep abreast of new technology....

Hence my preference that they be forwarded to the Editor for approval.
Still, for lists of "not life or death", an option to outright filter would
be acceptable.


> > Conversely, It would also be interesting to only allow posts that did
> > contain a certain word someplace in the message..so if I had a list
> > flowers, I would only allow posts that contain the word "flower" to
> > distributed. That way, I could proactively help the list stay on
>
> Hmm.. so my 5-paragraph posting regarding blossoms, chrysthantemums,
> dahlias, blooms, and petals would be rejected?

I've got to agree with you on this one.  A list of "must have" words would
seem to be of much less value.


+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes                              AOL IM:  CNBarnes
[log in to unmask]                      ICQ:     3581645
Computer Systems Manager
Department of Geography                    ph: 979-458-1539
Texas A&M University                      fax: 979-862-4487