Re: restricting sex oriented material

From: David Luyer <>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:36:27 +0800 (WST)

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Umar Goldeli wrote:
>> Give up guys. We aren't the protectors of public morality.
>err... I don't think anyone CARES about public morality... my guess would
>be that they are trying to conserve bandwidth.. for I can tell you that
>99% of most ISP's (and any other "public access" hosts) traffic is porn.

Consider this; 30 people who want to find porn go and access,,

Good cache efficiency. Now, block and the other major
ones - penthouse, sizzle, etc. The same 30 people waste their time finding
say 15, (maybe 3 of them get discouraged and give up but experience shows
most will be persistant and will find something), different sex sites, and
bring 15 different sets of objects into the cache.

And no, you're not going to block *ALL* sex sites, and unless you have a
news reading daemon blocking sites for you, you won't even block all the
sites your users will find with obscure names and numbers for filenames.
Blocking major sites just reduces cache efficiency by forcing your users
to smaller sites (or even worse, to many different mirrors of said,
blocked, site).

To say blocking major sex sites saves bandwidth is a misconception (at
least, with our userbase it would be).

Received on Tue Jun 03 1997 - 22:48:22 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:35:21 MST