morality and the dire prospects of an orwellian society have little to
do with the issue i think. It is more that you have a 'proper use'
policy and are looking for an automated way to support the policy (url
blocker). from here, 'proper use' falls into two categories. the 1st is
a basic loss of productivity and the second is basic loss of
productivity but also a mondo law suit for harassment. Since
corporations will find themselves in court (and all the negatives that
apply) over a porno site b4 they are there for a shopping site, it makes
sense to support the 'proper use' policy with some automation with
respect to porno...either a product or acl or wildcards.
if a firm chooses to monitor or publish use or block everything except
approved sites, they are welcome to, but as this list knows, they will
never be 100% successful in implementing whatever policy they choose to
the legal ramifications and consequences of specifically blocking some
sites may lead to the interpretation that other sites (including other
'bad' sites that were missed or are new) are specifically permitted by
management ("I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV....").
btw, what do you (to what length is management prepared to go to) when
you catch a porno junkie at work....does your policy have teeth?
say 'Hello" to Pandora when you see her....
>From firewalls-owner @
com Fri Jan 23 02:59:24 1998
>Received: from honor.greatcircle.com by relay3.UU.NET with ESMTP
> (peer crosschecked as: honor.greatcircle.com [220.127.116.11])
> id \Qdzod00601; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 05:59:01 -0500 (EST)
>Received: (majordom @
localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com
(8.8.5/Honor-Lists-970926-1) id WAA09821; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:54:05
>Received: from stangate.layne.com.au (dns-stanley.stanley.com.au
[18.104.22.168]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-971021-1) with
ESMTP id VAA15191 for <Firewalls @
COM>; Thu, 22 Jan 1998
21:14:57 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from paul.internal (proxy.layne.com.au [22.214.171.124]) by
stangate.layne.com.au (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id NAA14927; Fri, 23 Jan
1998 13:15:26 +0800
>Received: by paul.internal with Microsoft Mail
> id <01BD2802 .
internal>; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:22:58 +0800
>Message-ID: <01BD2802 .
>From: Phillip Twiss <pat @
>To: "'Billy Verreynne'" <vslabs @
> "'Firewalls @
> <Firewalls @
>Subject: RE: banned URL list required
>Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:22:56 +0800
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Sender: firewalls-owner @
> I've been sitting on the sidelines of this mailing list for a while =
>now, this message has finaly prompted me to throw my two cents worth =
> When I started with the company I work for, Internet access was =
>restricted to a few key individuals. Since then I have come up with a
>solution that allows all employees to have Internet access.
> All internet access is logged and sumarised by User Name - Site - Time
>- Bytes, this information is then posted publicly within the company.
> Since none of our employees want everyone else to know they spent 3.5
>hours browsing porn sites or downloading games, they dont do it anymore
> What was very interesting is comparing the statistics from before this
>started against afterwards. There was a lot more browsing of XXX, game
>and other non work related sites prior to the implementation of the =
>policy ( even though internet access was restricted to only a few =
> No need for NetNanny or other products, Public knowledge of their =
>activities is the best detterant.
> Obviously this is not a solution that applies to every site out
> but it works well for us
>From: Billy Verreynne
>Sent: Thursday, 22 January 1998 14:06
>To: Firewalls @
>Subject: Re: banned URL list required
> Norman Widders <winspace @
>>Does anybody know of a comprehensive list containing
>>inappropriate URL's/domains that I can use to configure
>>CERN httpd with, so I can prevent users browsing those sites
>>and block them ?
>IMO there's a difference between implementing security control =
>your network against abuse and attacks, and playing god and limiting =
>to what they're allowed to browse and not to browse on the net.
>If you can not trust an employee to do his/her work and is afraid that
>will spend their whole working day surfing sex sites, why on earth was
>person employed in the first place? Am I right? Or does security
>gestapo meassures that does not have anything to do with protecting a
>What is management going to decide to ban next? Maybe a few religious =
>political sites they don't agree with. Or maybe the jobs online sites
>prevent them from using the net to look for other work? And where's is
>going to stop?
>If you want to stop people from abusing the web by surfing so-called
>"undesirable" sites during office hours, simply release everyone's surf
>stats every month. And let peer pressure do the "enforcing" for you.
>PS. Having lived in the old South Africa, I get pissed off very easily
>the "powers that be" trying to enforce their "morality" on the people.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com