Porn msg identification?

[Julian Field]

At 14:42 17/04/2003, you wrote:
>Julian,
>
>    Our IT director was ranting about this same legal-problems sexual
>harrassment article last week, and I told him that MailScanner already
>had a great solution: the striphtml option for spam.  You designed this
>option to strip off the porn pix from spam, right?

Exactly. And the people here that use it love it. It just converts porn
spam into a rectangle of totally unintelligible garbage, which is precisely
what they want.

>   Anyway, he hated the
>idea, so I turned off the striphtml option, which I had been using.
>You can't win...

Worth a try.

One of my future projects is a content filter which will be passed
attachment files and return modified attachments, so you can remove or
alter any content you like.


>--- Jeff Earickson
>
>On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, G. Armour Van Horn wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:54:55 -0700
> > From: G. Armour Van Horn <vanhorn at whidbey.com>
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Porn msg identification?
> >
> > Julian,
> >
> > I had a fax yesterday from one of the beneficiaries of my MailScanner
> system
> > complaining about porn spam, and then I saw a note in the Politech list
> about the
> > subject, referring to this story:
> >
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1032-995658.html
> >
> > That suggests that companies handling work-related mail could, in some
> > jurisdictions (both important ones like Australia and minor ones like
> the US
> > <grin>) could end up with different obligations in handling porn pam
> than all
> > other kinds of solicitations.
> >

--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support