On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:48:35 EST, "Carrington, Tom" <[log in to unmask]>  said:
> I am wondering if there is any way that I can prevent subscribers from using
> profanity on the list. My ideal method would to be to have any e-mail
> messages that contained "4 letter" words to be rejected, with the list of
> no-no words configurable by the list or site owner.

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*.

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.

Since their filter seemed to be quite effective (as all the stuff that bounced
DID look like spam), I dropped their postmaster a note enquiring as to the
software they used.

I never found out - it got bounced by their filter (apparently because
it contained the phrase "your gateway never seems to bounce mail that is
not spam" - which seemed to trigger a "this is not spam" rule....)

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....

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....

> I know all about counseling the list members and telling them to stop, I'm
> just wondering if I can head it off before it even happens!

Not worth the effort.  Go down to Toys'R'Us and invest in a Louisville Slugger
instead.

> 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 about
> flowers, I would only allow posts that contain the word "flower" to be
> distributed. That way, I could proactively help the list stay on topic. :)

Hmm.. so my 5-paragraph posting regarding blossoms, chrysthantemums, dahlias,
blooms, and petals would be rejected?

Anyhow - the nature of the filter would become common knowledge very quickly,
and anybody who wanted to post an off-topic message regarding "purple pigs"
would simply make them "purple pigs with a gratuitous flower reference
crammed into an anatomically improbable orifice".

Good generals pick their battles.  This is one you can't win, so avoid
having it if you can....

                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Operating Systems Analyst
                                Virginia Tech