<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Overwhelmingness of Parental Controls?</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/david_bennett/archive/2007/01/30/overwhelmingness-of-parental-controls.aspx</link><description>There have been some comments about various aspects of Parental Controls being overwhelming, specifically in this post . It is true that some of the existing parental control companies will not be so keen on some features, however there is a lot of area</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: Overwhelmingness of Parental Controls?</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/david_bennett/archive/2007/01/30/overwhelmingness-of-parental-controls.aspx#620257</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:09:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:620257</guid><dc:creator>Lawrence Abrams</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I happen to agree, the only section that may be overwhelming for the casual user is the Allow and Block Specific Programs section. &amp;nbsp;For a hard core user it's great, but for a casual parent trying to lock down the computer, I can see the confusion it will bring. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I just finished my tutorial on Setting up Parental controls where I went into detail about every single option. It was a long but interesting experience. &amp;nbsp;The tute can be found here:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial139.html"&gt;http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial139.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I noticed a few odd things when playing with the web allow block lists files. &amp;nbsp;One is you do not allow : other than in http://. &amp;nbsp;This makes it impossible to block URLs with non-standard ports like &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.example.com:81"&gt;http://www.example.com:81&lt;/a&gt;. Another issue is that you can't have an URL with a &amp;amp; in it. &amp;nbsp;I see and understand why when you have a ? for a GET argument in an URL it is stripped so only the specific page is added to the list, but why couldn't that have been done with the ampersands as well? &amp;nbsp;With the way its currently setup it is very hard to do automatic conversion of known bad site lists to the new file format for Parental Controls.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Btw, glad I stumbled on to this site. &amp;nbsp;Very limited resources on parental controls currently.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Overwhelmingness of Parental Controls?</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/david_bennett/archive/2007/01/30/overwhelmingness-of-parental-controls.aspx#620336</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:09:24 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:620336</guid><dc:creator>David_Bennett</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Interesting points, I don't think we allow you to block www.frog.com:81 any differently than www.frog.com. &amp;nbsp;So if you block one, the other is blocked too.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Can you show me some examples of bad site lists? &amp;nbsp;Sounds like something that would be interesting to do, having a program that would convert the known block lists into the parental controls system.&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Overwhelmingness of Parental Controls?</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/david_bennett/archive/2007/01/30/overwhelmingness-of-parental-controls.aspx#621354</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:12:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:621354</guid><dc:creator>Lawrence Abrams</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Ahh..that is good to hear about the non-standard ports. &amp;nbsp;Just tested it and your right it does block it as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Some examples of bad site lists are:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm"&gt;http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.hosts-file.net/downloads.html"&gt;http://www.hosts-file.net/downloads.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/resource.htm"&gt;http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/resource.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are a few others but those are what I feel the best of breed. &amp;nbsp;I have already contacted the creator the MVP Hosts file&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>