Re: Anti-spyware at the Gateway

Somebody. <somebody.@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
> You know, I'm going to stop responding to you, because all your posts are
> "that's nonsense, that won't work, that's impossible, that's rediculous".
> And yet I have seen such things working, at many places, even while you
> claim it is not possible.
> You continue to operate in your world, I'll continue to operate in mine.

Russ,

are we talking about security here? There is no way to secure that
people can only see such websites you think they would be OK without
having a complete whitelist. Is this so hard to understand?

Of course, you can categorize. And you can filter by category. But
this categorization then is done with heuristics and not with algorithms,
do you agree?

And heuristics differ from algorithms, that their result _is_ _not_
_securely_ what you wanted, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_%28computer_science%29

So this may help to enforce a security policy. But it may not implement
secure web access in the meaning, that no user can use other websites
than the allowed ones.

The reason why I'm arguing here, and why I'm arguing heavy-handed is,
that so many providers of such filtering systems are lying to their
customers, who are believing that such filtering will solve this problem.
In reality, it will not, and most of those customers are fooled.

I don't think, that you're trying such things, of course. So please accept
my apology, if I was too rough for your feelings.

Yours,
VB.

-- 
Wenn Du "Ich sehe die Mathematik als einzigen Bereich an, wo es klare
Beweise gibt." und "Ich fuehle mich in einem Anzug unwohl." als Aussagen
mit aequivalentem Meinungsinhalt betrachtest, hast Du mit Deinem Gleichnis
recht. (Michail Bachmann zu Thomas Wallutis in d.a.s.r)