[LINK] Minister warned on p*** filters

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

Roger, the only evidence I have is that the original posting never 
arrived, but the subsequent one with the modified URL did.

As you have probably seen the second one I sent, which was a rely to 
Steve Jenkin's did arrive.

I'll try resending the original to Link.

Roger Clarke wrote:

> At 14:50 +1100 1/1/08, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> 
>> I tried to send this article to Link, but it would appear that 
>> someone's filters have censored it.
>>
>> Minister warned on p*** filters
>> The URL is
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/minister-warned-on-####-filters/2007/12/31/1198949746454.html 
>>
>>
>> but the original probably won't get through either. Just replace #### 
>> by that naughty word.
>>
>> Ironic, ain't it?
> 
> 
> Ironic, but also interesting, maybe even disturbing.
> 
> Bernard, could you send to link the evidence that leads you to infer 
> that "someone's filters have censored [your initial post to link]"?
> 
> We don't know what dynamic spam filters are doing at any given time, 
> whether operating at ISP-level and/or locally.  But would sensible 
> dynamic rules *really* block all emails containing that string, even 
> that word??
> 
> I posted the same article-title and URL to the privacy list at 12:20 
> today.    I received my own copy, and no bounce-message, so I assume it 
> got through to all subscribers okay - although of course I don't *know* 
> that.  (Jan?).
> 
> Aside:  My local filters put your email in my 'Spam Maybe' mailbox. I 
> *think* that was based on the filter that picks up <Subject: contains ***>.
> 
> 

-- 

Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Sydney Australia
brd at iimetro.com.au