>I think the view on filtering software needs to be revisited.. most people
>seem to look at filtering in the default allow (ie. blocking things that
>are bad while leaving everything else open).. vs. default deny
>(ie. blocking everything except for what is known to be good).. yes the
>second approach is more painful to build.. and it also suffers from not
>blocking the sites that "go bad"..
Not a bad idea, but would it work for libraries? Many people go to the
library to research things that may be somewhat obscure, and that would be
less possible if the list of allowed sites were less large. Still, it
should be possible to build a fairly large list if many groups were allowed
to contribute to it... It'd be much like having interlibrary loans, where
even if your library doesn't purchase a given book, you can often get it
through another library. Of course, the "What is objectionable?" problem
still stands, regardless of how your filtering is done.
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
