On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:02 PM, William L. Maltby <CentOS4Bill at 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? 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? > My humble apologies if what I posted was just noise. > Isn't it always? <RBFG> mhr (Oh, yeah, end of leg-pulling here, for sure. :-)