22 Aug
2001
22 Aug
'01
4:03 p.m.
Such messages would undoubtedly slip through a simply coded filter, but the
source could easily be rerouted to the bit-bucket. If someone is bent on being
offensive, it's not hard to filter the source out in a more general way rather
than just picking out the offensive posts. I'm trying to figure out how to keep
from overburdening the list host, who's already got
a full plate. It wouldn't
be a bad thing to reject and return messages with
more than, say, 3
misspellings, either. Too bad there's not a decent grammar/syntax checker ...
anything that would cause people to THINK before hitting SEND would certainly be
welcome.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey S. Sharp" <jss(a)subatomix.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: NOTICE FROM THE LIST HOST -- a vote in favor of limited moderation
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
I'd suggest one alternative that would help with that ... use a list
of disqualifying terms, beginning with the various "deletable
expletives" that occasionally appear in peoples posts/rants once they
get fired up.
That's a hard d4mn list for one sh1thead to make. It would take too
fscking long, and some 455h0l3 b4574rd will always come along and think of
some other p1550ff variation that breaks it. k-r4d 31337 h4X0r!!!!!
I'm sorry if that was offensive, but I believe it sufficiently illustrated
the point.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)subatomix.com