My guess is there are a _lot_ more than “seven words”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words that will get your e-mail newsletter sent to the penalty box and one of them has to be “porn”.
“Stefan Eyram”:http://www.onedegree.ca/contributors/stefan_eyram wrote an article this week provocatively titled “Porn, The Best Practices Industry”:http://www.onedegree.ca/2005/11/22/porn-the-best-practices-industry.
I was just about to send our weekly summary e-mail newsletter to the list (expect it at 11:45AM folks) but on my final check before hitting send I paused and thought “Hmmm, good article, but if I put _that_ title in there no one is going to see it because it will get caught by every spam filter worth its download.”
So I took it out and added this line at the top of the newsletter:
bq. _(We are not providing a link to one of our posts this week because we thought it might trigger filters – you’ll have to come to the site to get the link)_
This raises a few questions:
# What *are* the terms that will get you sidelined by most spam filters? (Consider generally accepted offensive language as a given – no need for potty mouth in the comments folks!)
# Is there a list somewhere?
# How much should we change our content to satisfy overly aggressive filters? I remember “paidcontent.org”:http://www.paidcontent.org at one time used “phree” instead of “free” in the e-mail versions of their articles. Confused the hell out of me.
# Should we “bleep out” dangerous words? I was going to rename the article “P**n, The Best Practices Industry” or “Pron, The Best Practices Industry” but it seems to me that filters must be looking for that kind of stuff by now anyway.
# *Bonus Question:* Is anyone filtering feeds for content? I.e. might posts in our feed with the word Porn trip some corporate filter?
Your insights are welcome.