Smut filter: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work|{{subtable| | {{a|work|{{subtable|From: postmaster@wickliffe-hampton.com<ref>Names have been changed to protect non-fungible identities</ref><br> | ||
From: | |||
Sent: 04 October 2021 16:10<br> | Sent: 04 October 2021 16:10<br> | ||
To: | To: Dan.Grade@wickliffe-hampton.com<br> | ||
Subject: [Postmaster] Content Alert Notification<br> | Subject: [Postmaster] Content Alert Notification<br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
This is a content alert notification message. | This is a content alert notification message. The message indicated below matches content alert policies set by the system administrator[[(s)]].<br> | ||
The message indicated below matches content alert policies set by the system administrator(s).<br> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
Message information:<br> | Message information:<br> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Found term [“shit”] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | Found term [“shit”] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | ||
Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | ||
Matched text: shit<br> | Matched text: shit<br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Found term [“shit”] in BODY_HTML, score is 1<br> | Found term [“shit”] in BODY_HTML, score is 1<br> | ||
Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | ||
Matched text: shit<br> | Matched text: shit<br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Found term [\ss\s?h\s?i\s?t\s] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | Found term [\ss\s?h\s?i\s?t\s] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | ||
Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | ||
Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t supercharge corporate primness — but how that end is | Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message is all that got through of a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t at least supercharge corporate primness? — but how that puritan end is met by stripping out and binning all the clean words, and saving up, amplifying and telegraphing the only “profane”<ref>Quaint, right?</ref> one, repeatedly, at the poor fragile recipient whose delicate sense of decency the smutbot was presumably defending in the first place, we can can only speculate. | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*[[Email]] | |||
*[[All watched over by machines of loving grace]] | |||
{{Ref}} | |||
Latest revision as of 22:09, 4 October 2021
|
Office anthropology™
|
Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message is all that got through of a message which, confessedly, did contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t at least supercharge corporate primness? — but how that puritan end is met by stripping out and binning all the clean words, and saving up, amplifying and telegraphing the only “profane”[2] one, repeatedly, at the poor fragile recipient whose delicate sense of decency the smutbot was presumably defending in the first place, we can can only speculate.