Re: [squid-users] url_regex problem

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On lör, 2008-07-19 at 00:54 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> Best option is to give up early and take other easier paths, like
>> teaching each and every client not to browse porn in the first place. Or
>> just blocking all non-plaintext traffic unless its pre-vetted.
>
> Using a soft block has proven to be quite effectively (soft == user gets
> told the content may be unappropriate according to the policy of use and
> then gets the choice to continue if he inists, knowing that traffic is
> logged and inspected..).

Yes, thats the best/easiest way to educate. You don't even need to spend
time talking people through the policy. Just mention its present, and
details come when they look like about to break it.

>
> In such setups the filter does not need to be very good, or even
> accurate. It's job is solely to remind people that there us a policy of
> use they need to follow and that their Internet use is monitored for
> abuse.
>
>> The full-word pattern looks like this:
>> [^a-zA-Z]([a-zA-Z]+)[^a-zA-Z]
>> substitute your word for the bracketed part.
>
> There is also regex word boundary conditions which helps reducing the
> above..
>
> \bbadword\b
>
> works on most regex libraries (certainly anything derived from or
> related to GNU regex).

Thanks you.

>
> but then you need to think of what is a word in the context... most
> likely you will find that nearly none of your patterns is a word in the
> context, just parial words from their use actually being cocatenated
> with some other word without any form of separator..
>
>> *** Note this is ONLY US-ASCII english words. Mostly useless now that
>> URI have been internationalized.
>
> And what crap way that has been done... but I guess the porn industry
> loves it for it's obscurity.

Not nearly as much as the russian 419 fraudsters appear to have.

Amos

-- 
Please use Squid 2.7.STABLE3 or 3.0.STABLE8