Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby.
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:56:14 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: August 16, 2004 11:34:07 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Cc: lauren () vortex com Subject: Re: [IP] Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby.
The two entrepreneurs were flabbergasted. Not only did they have no idea the e-mail had been sent, they had no idea that it had been snuffed out as junk. .... <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/05/technology/circuits/05filt.html>
Dave, Even within the specific domain of spam filtering (as opposed to other approaches to try deal with spam) the particular problem noted as the main example -- an important piece of e-mail lost without the sender or addressee knowing about it -- could have easily been avoided. The entire model of simply trashing e-mail assumed to be spam, or even moving it to "junk" folders where it might never be examined in a timely manner (if at all) is fatally flawed. Yet all it takes to fix this aspect of the problem is to make sure that the sender is notified that the message didn't get through. Spammers will likely never see that notice, but legit senders will. For example, no matter what the reason that an item of e-mail sent here is rejected (blocked host, spam filters, graylist, etc.) the sender is immediately notified (via an SMTP reject) that the message had a "problem" and what they can do about it. The Reject includes a URL here that gives them specific instructions, including a Web form that can be used to send in a note directly, to let me know that they're trying to reach me -- see http://www.vortex.com/mailblock (specific rejects will go directly to specific relevant locations on that page). In any case, the sender knows something is amiss, and can if they wish pick up the phone and call. They are not faced with the risk of having their message go into a black hole and not even know it. I consider irresponsible any anti-spam system that does not make a good-faith effort at notifying the sender on a timely basis that their message won't go through. It's relatively straightforward to handle this particular matter correctly if we're willing to make the effort. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () pfir org or lauren () vortex com or lauren () privacyforum org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/laurenCo-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Delete: Bathwater. Undelete: Baby. David Farber (Aug 16)