On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 15:47 -0800, MHR wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill@triad.rr.com wrote:
On top of all that, I'm relatively inexperienced at that stuff and am not sure what all is meant by a content filter. From my ignorant POV, being able to stop connections from/to certain sites _seemed_ seemed to fall within that capability. Of course my whole "unnerstaning" of that is based on casual hearing of things like "Parental Controls", blocking access to/from sites, etc.
An old-timer like you and you don't know what content filtering is? Oh, where have you been, Billy-boy, Billy-boy?
I've been to see my ... OOPS!
In reality, I was/am a "backroom" guy that got out of heavy involvement in programming stuff before the WWW became "all the rage". Needless to say, never got into all the "fancy doo-dads". Further, absolutely no interest at all in UI stuff - it's was always a pain during design phase because of the endless nit-picking over placement, size, colors, fonts, ... "Give me a break" was the phrase with which I would usually leave the meeting. It never caused much stir because of the way I was perceived.
As easily as I can depict it, it's where offensive (to the admin/enterprise/censor) subject matter, such as porn or foul language, gets analyzed by the filter and access allowed or denied based on that, not necessarily the IP address or URL. A "good" CBF will let you go to playboy.com, but you wouldn't be able to see any of the pictures within.
For example, the Clinton White House page was caught by Net Nanny (and possibly others) because it mentioned that Bill and Hillary were a couple (as in married) - because, "couple" as a verb has sexual connotations and the filter couldn't tell the difference.
Comprenez-vous, monsieur?
Oui.
My humble apologies if what I posted was just noise.
Isn't it always? <RBFG>
You been listening to my wife? ;-)
mhr
(Oh, yeah, end of leg-pulling here, for sure. :-)
Good thing - I got used to both being the same length.
<snip sig stuff>