Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 19 subscribers
  • Views 13454 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

PureMessage feature request

humungo6

Within PureMessage, although there is the option to scan for certain words or phrases etc, its not quite modular enough to allow us to allow certain usernames to be exempt.

As an example, we have a student user who's surname ends with shi, and his first initial is T... 2+2=this being quarantined in any reply. We also have a member of staff who has Gay in her surname. Again, this is frequently blocked. The words aren't particularly offensive in a sense that maybe we could allow it. But would it be possible to get a feature whereby words can be filtered; so the username "Ri**bleep**" or "Gayton" would be avoided?

I have already phoned support who gave me a few suggestions on how to only search for the full term "gay", but when the kids try to be clever: "youaregay" etc, then we still need to be filtering the phrase. Is there any way that an specific exception feature could be added? I don't know how the scanning agent behaves, but would there be potential to look for the "To:" header, then use a list of rules from there, making the rules more adaptable?

I'm not entirely sure I'm explaining my point very well, but would appreciate any feedback.

:1575


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    I will look into the whitelisting - though despite this, I still need the filtering in place. (This is where I think I failed to express my point). We do have staff users who are on an alert only policy to the filtering etc, but that was on request.

    If only blocking accounts was so simple. I don't know whether you can empathise with the situation, but if I block an account for misuse, I will be hounded to re-enable said account if it causes a problem for staff in a teaching room (they need to send an e-mail to the pupil etc).

    I'm looking for a middle ground - if at all possible. I am sure there is a work around to get this in place as it stand, though a more modular approach to policies is what I'd personally like to see. (though from the comments made so far, not important to others)

    I appreciate the response/feedback

    :1591
Reply
  • 0

    I will look into the whitelisting - though despite this, I still need the filtering in place. (This is where I think I failed to express my point). We do have staff users who are on an alert only policy to the filtering etc, but that was on request.

    If only blocking accounts was so simple. I don't know whether you can empathise with the situation, but if I block an account for misuse, I will be hounded to re-enable said account if it causes a problem for staff in a teaching room (they need to send an e-mail to the pupil etc).

    I'm looking for a middle ground - if at all possible. I am sure there is a work around to get this in place as it stand, though a more modular approach to policies is what I'd personally like to see. (though from the comments made so far, not important to others)

    I appreciate the response/feedback

    :1591
Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML