The answer seems to be that either Jive (this forum's hosting provider) or McAfee has scanned the filenames and detected the word "b u c k e t", and promptly decided that this is a disguised profanity of some sort. Look at the screenshot below and you'll see what I mean.
I can see the reason for this sort of vulgarity- or obscenity-detection, although apparently it can be over-strict at times. If the scanning simply looks for the three letters "uck" then we'll have to watch what we type. If it's the word "bucket" then I'm baffled. Perhaps in America it has a meaning somewhat different from the one that I'm used to. In which case whoever writes the scanning software needs a crash course in sociolinguistics and dialect studies.
Edit - HA! I rest my case, m'lud. Look at the above message and you will see "******" in the text. These asterisks were inserted AFTER I clicked the button to send the message. I actually used the word "b+u+c+k+e+t". I wonder which other "uck" words will get pounced on? Oh goody goody good. I see a fascinating game of Beat The Censor coming up.
Message was edited by: Hayton on 18/04/11 17:56:34 ISTMessage was edited by: Ex_Brit on 18/04/11 2:11:45 EDT PM
Stick a space between them and they will show.
It seems arbitrary to filter in the body of a post and not the header don't you think?Message was edited by: Ex_Brit on 18/04/11 2:13:09 EDT PM
Inidicium I doubt this has anything to do with Photob u c k e t....;-) More likely to do with the fact that images in signatures here have to be a secure URL (https) and Photowhatsit can't provide that.
If you wish I can take the images and host them in an obscure area of this forum, which will give them a secure URL and then you can use that.
The odd thing is if it's the flags that you are talking about, I see those in your profile OK.
I think there is some filtering going on. Look at the screenshot and you will see that the URL has been modified in the page source code so that it shows as "photo******.com". If that was done before the page was rendered then of course the browser would not have been able to resolve that URL.
Edit - I see the images are now hosted locally and are displayable. Nothing objectionable at all there : so it's back to the censoring question - where is the filtering software, and who controls it?Message was edited by: Hayton on 18/04/11 19:38:51 IST