The Plague Of False Positives
from the revolting-against-spam-filters dept
This has been discussed before, but the "quick hook" of many spam filters is causing many legitimate emails to get lost. The article includes the story of someone who had a senior exec at a potential customer email him for some information about his products. The guy tried to write back, but every time, his emails were blocked as spam. Luckily, in this case, he was alerted. Plenty of times, those email disappear into a blackhole. Just recently, I experience something similar. Responding to a specific company request, I was told that my email address had been specifically "blacklisted". I had to email the person from an outside email address just to get around it. The article claims that some ISPs are giving up on filtering spam themselves - saying that they get such angry calls over "false positives". While I can understand why a number of legitimate opt-in bulk email gets caught in spam filters, individualized emails shouldn't be. However, the article says up to 15% of "routine email" messages never get delivered after being flagged as spam. The main problem is that spam is really in the eye of the beholder, not the eye of the ISP or network administrator. While the article suggests the answer is more desktop spam filters, I disagree. A desktop spam filter makes less and less sense in a mobile world where you want to access your email on many different devices. What we need are spam filters on the server side (don't even want to bother downloading spam), which gives the end-user control over the defining process (and the ability to review flagged emails). While there are tools like SpamAssassin for this purpose, most aren't very easy for an everyday user to set up and manage themselves. At the same time, I think that challenge-response systems actually make this problem worse by basically defining all emails as spam. That is it has an almost 100% false positive rate at startup. Anyone who decides not to jump through your hoops never gets their email to you, and thus is classified as a false positive.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
a few other things to try
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I'm doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brightmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brightmail -- what ISP do you use?
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
He thinks I'm wrong about challenge-response because most people will set up their C-R systems so that the sender never notices (since your addressbook will automatically get whitelisted).
That doesn't explain the C-R challenges I get all the time - all of which I ignored.
Sure, it would be great if it worked, but so far, it doesn't. Defining everything as spam isn't the solution. It just makes the problem worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
I still have to disagree. It works fine for me. If someone has a c/r system and doesn't bother to clear addresses that they send to, that's their issue. If you get a challenge because the sender didn't bother to either whitelist you, or, better, use a system that does it automatically, you're well within your rights to ignore it.
It's all about tools, and how people use them. At the end of the day, c/r works for me, and I don't get any complaints. Of all of the technilogical solutions, c/r seems to be the only one that is actually getting the job done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
Might it be that you don't get any complaints because nobody bothers to deal with your c/r system? I know I don't deal with anyone's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
To confirm this, I save all of my unconfirmed email and go through it once a week or so. I've never found anything in there that I thought should have been confirmed.
As I said, c/r seems the best solution right now. There are some things that could be done to it to make it even better, and address some of the concerns expressed. I expect we'll see those improvements in short order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mailwasher works well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
1. The article has this quote:
"What people resent the most is having the IT department or ISP determine what is -- and what is not -- spam," said Herrick. "No one else has the right to open your regular mail. It should be no different with e-mail."
The above is a generalization... many, many users LOVE having the ISP determine what is spam... especially parents of kids using the net.
2. The article states, "... all users ultimately wind up wasting a lot of time searching through their bulk mail folders for false positives ...", a generalization which is simply wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what we use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]