Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:36:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
923 times
|
| |
|
|
Yes. nicely put. admittedly a filter can be good but not perfect.
Even if it only catches 50%, it's helped out and that would only leave
the extreme cases for the admins to deal with. The occasional slip
would be taken care of most of the time. I think that'd be good enough.
-JSM
David Koudys wrote:
>
> If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru'
> would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#.
>
> The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5.
>
> Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| The problem is that we're not dealing with momentary issues where someone mistypes or whatnot. Willy went out of his way to use a cuss, and then went out of his way to obfuscate the Admin's process of dealing with his cuss. A filter won't deal with (...) (20 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lugnet should be MORE draconian
|
| (...) If the code puts ###@%% in for a list of words, then any word that 'slips thru' would be manually edited such that the word is now #@%#@#. The code'll catch the 95 percent, thus freeing up admins time for the other 5. Dave K (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
