Searching \ for '[OT:] Pornography: Prudish mail servers.' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=prudish+mail+servers
Search entire site for: 'Pornography: Prudish mail servers.'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT:] Pornography: Prudish mail servers.'
2005\04\11@144141 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
Just so you know, we are getting lots of bounces from mail servers that are
rejecting this thread due to the words in it. 'P0rh' is apparently something
that automated systems are commonly set to screen out.

I don't mind the thread as long as it doesn't get heated or cause a lot of
problems... I'll try to reset the no mail bit for anyone's account who gets
no mailed due to the bounces, but so far they have all been "uncaught" e.g.
the list server doesn't see who's subscription caused the bounce and so
doesn't no mail anyone.

Just another case of your "freedom of speech" on the PICList being protected
by the work of admins... <GRIN>

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
spam_OUTjamesnewtonTakeThisOuTspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\04\11@155144 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Since I seem to be losing this one anyway, ... its probably not an
appropriate
subject on our list, since some young folks subscribe...

I won't chime in anymore.

--Bob

James Newton, Host wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: To protect our network,
attachments must be sent to
attachspamKILLspamengineer.cotse.net .
1-866-263-5745 USA/Canada
http://beam.to/azengineer

2005\04\11@182136 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Since I seem to be losing this one anyway, ... its probably not an
> appropriate
> subject on our list, since some young folks subscribe...

"A man convinced against his will has the same opinion still."
This isn't really something you can "lose" on if you talk about it. If
you don't change your mind little is lost. If you do change at all
it's unlikely (IMHO) that it would be in the liberal direction.

By all means offer opinion. Your initial input was valuable.
My intention in pursuing this was "awareness raising" - including my
own. The greater range of perspectives the better.

Apart from offering one web reference I don't think we've done
anything that would encourage the young or prurient. The already
committed would just go and find a readily accessible porn site far
worse than the one mentioned, instead of reading the thread. So far we
have one taker for my question list who had no problem with his
wife/daughters being so involved. And one who effectively grudgingly
concedes the point. (So far convinced against his will :-) ).


       Russell McMahon

2005\04\11@185527 by Jinx

face picon face
> worse than the one mentioned, instead of reading the thread. So far
> we have one taker for my question list who had no problem with his
> wife/daughters being so involved

Make that two. I would also not object to Mrs Rigby-Jones getting
her kit off

(sorry Mike ;-)) )

2005\04\11@201557 by John Ferrell

face picon face
If we could agree on what is "Porn" the problem would be easier to manage.
While I found the mentioned site interesting, I did not find it interesting
enough to subscribe.
Personally, it has to get pretty coarse for me to object. Even then if it is
not forced upon me, I can choose to ignore it!

Since the update in Outlook Express that prevents pictures from autoloading,
I can open my email in the presence of my grand daughter. It was a good
change.

I don't expect her to be ignorant of sex, but I don't want here to learn it
from the bawdy sources either.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2005\04\12@043435 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu]
>Sent: 11 April 2005 23:55
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT:] Pornography: Prudish mail servers.
>
>
>> worse than the one mentioned, instead of reading the thread.
>So far we
>> have one taker for my question list who had no problem with his
>> wife/daughters being so involved
>
>Make that two. I would also not object to Mrs Rigby-Jones
>getting her kit off
>
>(sorry Mike ;-)) )

Hehe, that depends on if you are "into" pregnant women!  I said I didn't
have a daughter, but on July 4th I might have! (baby was shy during scan
so couldn't tell what sex it was).

BTW Russel, I showed her the web site and she was not offended at all.
I asked her if she would consider posing nude for photos that would be
displayed on a public website and I got a rather withering look that
suggested "no". ;)

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\04\12@064444 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> BTW Russel, I showed her the web site and she was not offended at
> all.
> I asked her if she would consider posing nude for photos that would
> be
> displayed on a public website and I got a rather withering look that
> suggested "no". ;)

Serious question. Are you or she able to explain the apparent
disparity between these two points. (May be as simple as people not
being happy with aging bodies being seen by anyone or similar.)


       Russell

2005\04\12@075945 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]
>Sent: 12 April 2005 11:44
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT:] Pornography: Prudish mail servers.
>
>
>> BTW Russel, I showed her the web site and she was not offended at
>> all.
>> I asked her if she would consider posing nude for photos that would
>> be
>> displayed on a public website and I got a rather withering look that
>> suggested "no". ;)
>
>Serious question. Are you or she able to explain the apparent
>disparity between these two points. (May be as simple as people not
>being happy with aging bodies being seen by anyone or similar.)


That's pretty much it.  I suppose we are both fairly shy in that
respect, certainly no exhibitionist tendencies ;)

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\04\12@091732 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:

> Since I seem to be losing this one anyway, ... its probably not an
> appropriate subject on our list, since some young folks subscribe...

I can't really imagine that this discussion here could be harmful to anyone
old enough to read email and browse the web for PIC resources. If anything,
it helps.

Gerhard

2005\04\12@095148 by Tony Smith

picon face

> If we could agree on what is "Porn" the problem would be easier to manage.
> While I found the mentioned site interesting, I did not find it
> interesting enough to subscribe.
> Personally, it has to get pretty coarse for me to object. Even
> then if it is not forced upon me, I can choose to ignore it!
>
> ....
>
> John Ferrell


There's a question that'll take forever to resolve!

At a previous job, we ran voice mail dating services, as you find in
newspapers, etc.  One task was to screen & censor messages (we screened the
ads, not the responses as only the advertiser could hear those).

The dividing line between go/no go was as Russell described, you might think
it's ok, but what would your 13 year old daughter think?  This came down to
deleting the obvious ones with rude words, but what of "I'm looking for a
girl who enjoys fun times"?  These were usually let thru, unless the
advertiser 'sounded' a bit sleazy.  A very grey line.

One notable message was a bloke who said he was in a wheelchair, but still
sexually capable.  I let it though, but someone else wanted to delete it
since it had a 'sex' word in it.

Another was a prostitute who advertised.  She worded her message very
carefully, it was obvious to an adult what the subtext was, but not to a
child.  As you might imagine, her mailbox went ballistic.

I can certain see Russell's point, and I'm sure most people who claim to
have no problem with porn would be uncomfortable with "Well, watch it with
your daughter then...".  Religion/Christianity has nothing to do with it.
Plenty of atheists have the same opinion.

Anyone else remember the idea of having a .xxx domain to shove all the porn
in, leaving the rest of the 'net clean?

Tony



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...