+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 116
CLEO Thread, New Filter (June 2010) in Regional Broadband Consortiums (RBC); unless we have missed an email or two in my school that explained this new filter All info is on ...
  1. #16

    SimpleSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    5,808
    Thank Post
    1,476
    Thanked 592 Times in 444 Posts
    Rep Power
    168
    unless we have missed an email or two in my school that explained this new filter
    All info is on the portal (or that's what they'll say when asked )

    Unfortunately - there seem to be a number of people VERY unwilling (or not allowed by someone else) to provide timely information to us.

    A simple website that we could monitor for changes would do the job but that seems to be beyond their ability to organise

    regards
    Simon

  2. #17

    Ric_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,590
    Thank Post
    109
    Thanked 762 Times in 593 Posts
    Rep Power
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleSi View Post
    A simple website that we could monitor for changes would do the job but that seems to be beyond their ability to organise
    I did suggest this some time ago and even recommended a site where there's already a forum for CLEO discussions. Now what was the name of that site

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    17
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 5 Posts
    Rep Power
    13
    Hi
    Can I just ask that if you are experiencing problems with the filtering please can you let us know the specific details so that we can try to address them ideally before schools come back.

    The switch to a new system is a major change and there are differences between the two systems which whilst we have tested the software with pilot schools it is very difficult to pick up all the issues that such a major change involves on this scale.

    At the moment we are bringing things in on a phased basis, with the aim being that you get a similar level of access as you had before under smart filter but will then bring in new features later on.
    With respect to primary school filtering we are not going to forcing schools manage their own filtering, they will still be filtered by a default filtering policy that has been tailored for primary schools. What we will be doing is offering those primary schools that would like the option to have a bit more control over the filtering the capacity to do that.

    Also can I clarify that we did not switch the filtering as a cost cutting exercise it was done as our existing filtering license was due to expire and we had to go out and look at the options that were available and Netsweeper best met our requirements.

    With respect to the existing white lists we have compared the white lists in Smartfilter against how Netsweeper categorizes sites and have added the lists in. However since we have done that comparison additional sites have been white listed and so some of these may have been missed, please can you let us know about them and we will see if we can get them added back in.

    Can I just add that the new filtering should ultimately provide you with much more flexibility for those who want it as you will have a lot more local control over what you get access to. It should ultimately speed things up as websites will be categorized automatically.

    Please bear with us to whilst we work towards making the switch as painless as possible.

    PS We will investigate the issues with the speed of scanning of the websites

    Thanks


    Martin

  4. Thanks to schoolsupport from:

    SimpleSi (4th June 2010)

  5. #19
    Arcath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    972
    Thank Post
    102
    Thanked 116 Times in 101 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I assume that the Time Outs are not the websites but the net sweeper bieng made to scan every other web page someone accesses?

    One feature that needs to be setup which can be achived through a little bit of JS is putting the original url back into the address bar! its a pain having to type the url in again, if it was put back into the address bar f6 then enter would resend the request

  6. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    East Lancashire
    Posts
    100
    Thank Post
    10
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
    Rep Power
    13
    I've logged it but google cache is working :-/ Example

  7. #21
    ChrisH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Lancs
    Posts
    4,999
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 280 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    I have just queried the fact that they are asking for a password on the unblock form. I assume it is the users email password but we have our own exchange server and not the county hosted services.

  8. #22
    AWicher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    317
    Thank Post
    58
    Thanked 40 Times in 31 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    We have just issued a memo to staff not use that service but to email us with the URL and we will forward to westfield.

  9. #23
    ChrisH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Lancs
    Posts
    4,999
    Thank Post
    120
    Thanked 280 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    We did the same this morning. They are currently looking into it.

  10. #24
    soveryapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    2,402
    Thank Post
    648
    Thanked 277 Times in 244 Posts
    Rep Power
    78
    I love the fact that there are links from the LancsNGFL website (NCSL specifically) that had their login page blocked as it was https, but you didn't get any "unblock this page" text, it was just blocked, so emailed them on the filter@ address to get it resolved, which ok, they have done pretty quickly, but if they are managing to block sites they recommend, I hate to think what is going to happen..

    I think it's a case of ride the storm and see if it settles. I agree that it is a good thing they are putting more control into our hands, as there are certain aspects of the various sites (YouTube, etc) that are useful for Educational purposes, but I guess it depends on how hard it is to manage and how much extra workload it's going to involve, and whether it will be a default set of rules, but you can set a whitelist for the school that over-rules them, therefore you get additional protection of CLEO blocking the nasty sites, or if we choose to self manage, are we then wholeheartedly responsible for the content that comes to the school?

    I know we all got warning of the changeover taking place last Wednesday via the Schools Portal the week prior, but it would be nice to have a little more information to go with all that too, but hopefully that will be coming.

  11. #25

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,803
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 583 Times in 504 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by aptproductions View Post
    If we choose to self manage, are we then wholeheartedly responsible for the content that comes to the school?
    That's note quite how it works. If you get pulled up for some reason for its always the schools fault. Regardless of if you are using an in-house filter, or your RBCs. RBCs wipe their hands clean of anything being their fault in that contract you signed....

  12. #26
    Arcath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    972
    Thank Post
    102
    Thanked 116 Times in 101 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    gems.rubyforge.org seems to break the filter horribly, it spends ages scanning it and then seems to start the process again a few times before coming up with a good old squid error.

    It seems to scan and think "yes he can view this" but wont then load the actual page, I dont actually want to browse the site iteself, i want to install some gems on a virtual machine, but the "gem install" command simply fetches the .gem files over http. I could install gems under the old Smart Filter as gems.rubyforge was obviously on the whitelist.

    Whilst i cant install gems i thought it would be a good move to clone my git repo onto the local machine, it now transpirers that that wont work either. Using the HTTP location for the repo just fails because netsweeper seems to want to scan everysingle file before i can pull it, which of course returns a html page instead of .rb file. The git repo im trying to use is http://github.com/Arcath/rWallpaper

    This new filter does seem to work rather well, i am assuming that git hub isnt on the whitelist but i can still brwose the site with a little delay for pages i havent visted yet. But for things that run over http its murder and just prevents them from working, and because they arent blocked i dont get the unblock request form (not that id put my password any where near a un secured connection anyway)
    Last edited by Arcath; 8th June 2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason: more info

  13. #27
    soveryapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    2,402
    Thank Post
    648
    Thanked 277 Times in 244 Posts
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
    That's note quite how it works. If you get pulled up for some reason for its always the schools fault. Regardless of if you are using an in-house filter, or your RBCs. RBCs wipe their hands clean of anything being their fault in that contract you signed....
    Oh I realise that, I meant do they still block the additional nasties and we just whitelist pages to override their rules, or by taking on board the filtering ourselves, do we have to then start adding the nasties ourselves and maintaining the other filters.

  14. #28

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,803
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 583 Times in 504 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by aptproductions View Post
    Oh I realise that, I meant do they still block the additional nasties and we just whitelist pages to override their rules, or by taking on board the filtering ourselves, do we have to then start adding the nasties ourselves and maintaining the other filters.
    Well in Lancashire you would still be subject to some filtering even if you 'opt out' (something you can only do on the 'Admin' network side). The type of thing that's filtered is basic illegal stuff though. However there is an argument against even this. Because (at least in Lancashire) no one at the LEA/RBC ever checks the logs, you would never catch anyone trying to do something exceptionally naughty. You may now madly wave your 'duty of care' flag about.

  15. #29
    AWicher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Preston
    Posts
    317
    Thank Post
    58
    Thanked 40 Times in 31 Posts
    Rep Power
    18
    Well we seemed to have a better internet filtering just b4 when the proxy servers where falling over (CLEO), i don't know if the Netsweeper was offline temporarily

    I don't want to be negative about a new system. I of all people know new things don't always go to plan right away and i "could" see lots of benefits (Without knowing actually what this netsweeper will offer in any detail) of it, its just annoying me as its taking me more time to do my job.

    As for the scanning, yesterday was the worst, several links where just endlessly "scanning page" without actually doing anything, or after 20min timing out.

    I JUST WANT INFO ABOUT THE SYSTEM!!! especially how the filtering from school will work. Will there be a limit on what we can unblock?

  16. #30

    SimpleSi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    5,808
    Thank Post
    1,476
    Thanked 592 Times in 444 Posts
    Rep Power
    168
    On my very first search (apart from last weeks test) on 1st day back
    (top result on google for "calendar snooze")

    The netsweeper msg came up first and then I got this

    The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression.
    Tried it in IE7 - NED box says URL can't be retrieved

    reported to Westfield

    regards

    Simon

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. exchange 2010 spam filter
    By RabbieBurns in forum Enterprise Software
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 7th August 2011, 02:29 PM
  2. Withdrawal Of The Elgar 20 Note - 30 June 2010
    By DaveP in forum General Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30th June 2010, 10:08 PM
  3. EduGeek Conf 2010- 2nd June, Chorley
    By Dos_Box in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 23rd April 2010, 10:11 AM
  4. 2010 issue with spam filter
    By browolf in forum CLEO
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12th January 2010, 09:26 AM

LinkBacks (?)

  1. 4th June 2010, 12:31 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •