Re: [squid-users] ditch squidguard and urlblacklist.com

On 1/3/07, dhottinger@harrisonburg.k12.va.us
<dhottinger@harrisonburg.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Quoting Nick Duda <nduda@VistaPrint.com>:
> > I've been fighting this fight for far to long without resolution. I've
> > emailed the list at times with no resolution to my problem. I'm now
> > faced with ditching Squid and SquidGuard as our corporate content
> > filtering product because it can not do what we need.

Ditch Squidguard, and definitely ditch urlblacklist.com.

Squid itself is a fine product, and works quite well as a proxy, but
isn't built to do large-scale web filtering, instead it has hooks for
third-party censorware.

> You can do something similiar with SecureComputings Smartfilter. It
> will tie into Active Directory.

I second this recommendation.

We just completed a 3-month evaluation of SmartFilter, and only
decided against purchasing licenses because we (mostly) trust
employees, and are loath to trust some outside entity to make
subjective judgements about good/bad sites.

SmartFilter can be linked into Squid on a handful of different
operating systems, and while the URL database is not perfect (no URL
database is perfect), it is infinitely better than urlblacklist.com.

Kevin

(P.S. I first submitted to urlblacklist a request to have one domain
removed from the 'porn' catagory in 2004. Two years and several
resubmissions later, the domain is *still* listed incorrectly by
urlblacklist.)

(P.P.S. I've checked all the commercial filtering services and every
other database has the domain listed in the correct categories. And
this isn't some podunk personal domain, it's a three-letter .com
domain receiving millions of hits each day.)
Received on Wed Jan 03 2007 - 12:07:42 MST