Risks of Partisan Spam Filtering? 63
Mike1024 asks: "Pete Klammer reported in RISKS 23.95 about spam filtering software filtering political e-mails - including Postini blocking certain anti-Schwarzenegger URLs and Comcast blocking e-mails mentioning afterdowningstreet.org. This could be caused by malicious action, misreporting of spam, 'joe jobs', or actual spamming. With many people using their ISP's default settings, and manual spam filtering being impractical for many users, what can be done to avoid giving ISPs and anti-spam companies extensive, fully automated censorship abilities?"
Gee, stop asking for donations? (Score:4, Insightful)
How sites/messages end up as "spam". (Score:2)
#2. The sending address is on a blacklist because people received the email and submitted it as spam.
#3. If #1 or #2 apply, web links inside the message can be classified as "spammy" content. This includes links to graphics, articles, and so forth.
#4. See #3, but key words can be classified as "spammy" content. The easy way around this is to use the "this is not spam" function that should be available to you.
So, the
Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
It's not so simple since many return addresses are forged. And unless the spam gets bounced to the forged return address, the owner is likely unaware that their address is being forged and can't pursue corrective measures.
All this filtering d
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
Sorry, I should have said "sending IP address". There is no way to forge the IP address of the machine sending you the message and still receive the message.
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
Yes, most spam is probably sent via zombies, but that's not who I recommend going after. (Though a blanket ban on MS-Windows by all ISPs would help there.) Who I do recommend going after in my earlier post are the businesses advertising via spam. If they want
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
It did? I commonly get 3-4 pieces of fax spam a week, despite all my phone numbers being on the federal "do not call" list. And the station numbers always lead to disconnected lines.
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
Then you can start collecting money from them, if you're both in the US. Junk fax is illegal according to 47USC227 [gpo.gov], so look into "(b) Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment". IANAL, but maybe small claims court is the way to go. If they don't show up, you win by default.
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
My worry is that with VoIP, how easy will it be to spam call without being traced?
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
I wonder why the phone company has never fixed this? You'd think they'd get in trouble from police departments trying to trace harrasing calls...
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
O calls are by defintion coming from a different exchange than your local phone company- a different town, say, or
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
*choke*snort*spewcoffee* sorry, I can't believe I actually suggested that phonecos would collaborate to improve security...
Anyway, you'd think the phonecos (the major ones at least) would want to be able to track the phone calls coming in, otherwise who would they bill for those long distance calls? I can't believe the phoneco'
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
They simply charge the next phone company up the line- who charges the phone company up the line from them. It's basically a huge game of "not my problem", until you get to the final one- and even then the system that records long distance billing informa
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
Same way I deal with spam. My whitelist is now at the point where if it does go into my "junkmail" box, I likely didn't ask for it to be sent to me.
2nd reply- the real problem is spam is new (Score:2)
Re:2nd reply- the real problem is spam is new (Score:1)
IPv6 doesn't have any plans for IP packet origin verification, does it? Just curious because I wonder if phone/fax spam will get worse once VoIP becomes popular.
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
These days- not to hard. You can do it with software and a voice modem. My only problem is getting it to *intercept* the call before it gets to other phones in the house or the fax machine.
Re:2nd reply- the real problem is spam is new (Score:2)
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
I wonder how hard it would be to set up a digital "phone switching" service, just like you get most businesses. Something you could set up where the phone line enteres the house, and then any authorized calls it would pass on to the rest of the house.
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:1)
I've heard of devices that send a certain voltage back down the phone line when the phone rings that somehow confuses modems into thinking they've been disconnected, ever heard of it?
Re:Genetic algorithm for realistic spam (Score:2)
Re:Gee, stop asking for donations? (Score:2)
(I don't mind being biased, just interested to know)
Secondly, since US political parties are, I believe, "licensed to spam", surely that means I delete them on principle anyway (as legalised spammers) regardless of the validity of their viewpoint (if any)
i.e. if a group are given legal dispensation to spam, I'll do what I can to delete anything they send, simply because they might be spammers.
(works for terrorists, may as well work for politi
Once again Slashdot is ahead of the pack (Score:1, Insightful)
What the hell is the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does political mail look like spam? Oh God, yes. Again, no surprise that a Bayesian style filter might get confused.
Should we chuck automated email filtering? This problem has always existed. Important messages have a small chance of being miscategorized. If that's not acceptable to you, don't use those filters, or switch to an email provider that doesn't filter your mail that way.
"Partisan" spam filtering is a farce. What the hell could the ISP possibly gain by surpressing political viewpoints? It's a software fuckup.
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:2)
Very true, but once again, it's merely a failure of the system. There's absolutely no reason to assume that ISPs are purposefully blocking certain political viewpoints. It's ludicrous.
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:1)
Very true, but once again, it's merely a failure of the system. There's absolutely no reason to assume that ISPs are purposefully blocking certain political viewpoints. It's ludicrous.
I agree. But the second some political mass-mailer or form letter gets dropped or bounced, the assumption will be conspiracy.
Besides, I wasn't even speaking to political mail. At work, we had a machine running Norton AntiSpam and Thunderbird Junk controls. Norton was overly aggressive, flagging nearly everything as spam
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:1)
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:2)
As I recall, it degenerated quickly into a... discussion of whether it was just people putting old addresses on auto-report, or whether the site was actually sending out unsolicited mail
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:2)
Perhaps the sub was unclear. What I'm particularly interested in is ISPs blocking e-mail based on lists of spamvertised URLs.
It would be pretty trivial for an ISP employee to add arbitrary URLs to such lists. Someone in AOL's anti-spam department could stop AOL users receiving e-mails referencing www.anncoulter.com or www.michaelmoore.com.
The referenced article implies that this has happened:-
Re:What the hell is the big deal? (Score:1)
Perhaps you missed this [slashdot.org]?
It wasn't that long ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It wasn't that long ago... (Score:2)
I forget how the episode ends, but it probably wasn't pleasant.
ISPs shouldn't block anything (Score:2)
Re:ISPs shouldn't block anything (Score:2)
Oh, so now you're the judge of what is and is not a "proper" service for a company to offer to its customers? I believe Bayesian mail filtering is a perfectly reasonable service to offer to those customers who want it. But hey, according to you that isn't "proper," so I must be a moron.
If the customer doesn't like it,
Re:ISPs shouldn't block anything (Score:2)
Re:ISPs shouldn't block anything (Score:2)
It's only email that gets filtered like this (Score:3, Interesting)
All your (snail) mail gets delivered to me. I will read it, and throw away anything that looks like junk, and then send the good stuff on to you. I won't tell you what I've thrown away, or what criteria I use.
You wouldn't sign up for that, would you? So why do people put up with third-party spam filters that do the same thing? I know that spam is a big problem, but everyone ought to take control over their own communications. It's one thing for me to decide to throw some email away unread; it's quite a different thing to give someone else that power over me.
Re:It's only email that gets filtered like this (Score:2)
You said you won't explain what criteria you use. There are some mail filtering systems where this indeed is the case, but a Bayesian or other statistical system is open for examination. The criteria are probabilities. As somebody who has designed these kinds of filtering systems, I have absolutely no problem handing the decision-making over. I know how it works. And I know how it screws
Re:It's only email that gets filtered like this (Score:2)
Re:It's only email that gets filtered like this (Score:2)
Remember, ISPs are doing spam filtering because customers ask for it. You may not use it but other people will and are.
Nothing? (Score:1, Interesting)
What's the issue? (Score:2)
Well, there you go.
They shouldn't use the default settings.
The Masses are getting what they want. The least amount of spam possible.
If some people are really interested in their email then they would be well advised to spend a few minutes looking at the filtering options.
Answer (Score:2)
what can be done to avoid giving ISPs and anti-spam companies extensive, fully automated censorship abilities?
Making them openly disclose exactly what spam filtering policies they use.
After all, if people have no idea about what they're not getting, they won't even know.
For example, I lost out on a wonderful opportunity to help out a government official in Nigeria that my friends are pursuing right now.
Use slashdot to report it (Score:1)
Obvious (Score:1, Flamebait)
the political lists could help out (Score:4, Insightful)
But they figure that since they're not commercial, that they have a cause and a message, that they don't really have to pay attention to running a clean list, and anyone who blocks them must be a political censor.
I'm a left liberal, but I find myself blocking the DNC more often than the RNC, simply because the former has less stringent mail practices.
Yeah, but ... (Score:2)
The fact that a bulk-mailing to a bunch of people happened to be political in nature doesn't change the fact that those messages smell shockingly like spam.
Just Face It (Score:1)
You could hire someone to point out all of the interesting TV shows for you. They will miss some good ones and they will give you some that are boring.
You could hire someone to push the FF button on the remote to skip the commercials on the DVR. Will they skip over the 1 in 100 that is actually advertising something interesting? Yes.
People do hire others to teach their kids and listen to the noise ab
If your not on my list your probably SPAM. (Score:3, Informative)
As for other automated systems like Postini, which we use at work it all comes down to the content. A lot of time configuration errors will creep in as well like the time all mail a guy named Dick H... was being deleted without notice! You can guess why.
PostIni has actually blocked some political mail to me and I can give you a few hints.
Certain political emails contain verbage that gets labeled as porn or hate speech. That second category is so broad and abused that companies will throw about anything that might hint of insensitivity under it just to keep themseleves safe.
The second category they got caught by? Money. There is a $$$ category that attempts to weed out money requests and the like.
Do I care one way or another? No, I particulary did not like how the government excluded the rules of spam from acting on elected officials and I really couldn't care less about any unsolicited spam from either aisle.
Re:If your not on my list your probably SPAM. (Score:2)
Good luck buying anything from a shop which emails you once to say "can we check your address?"
I was looking at the greylist system, until I realised how many false-positives it would generate. Even today, when I auto-delete about 99.8% of my email, I still have to fish-out internet shops and add them to the relevant whitelists...
Maybe I should allocate one To: address for all the shops, rather than a different one for each shop (which tells me who leak
Coincidence? (Score:1, Troll)
Can't find an original story right now, but http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/46/urban_work.
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Informative)
Tag spams, don't drop them (Score:3, Interesting)
The webhosting company I use for my personal stuff does this (not going to mention names, because I don't want this to sound like a plug). I can set up unlimited POPs and forwarders, and adjust the SpamAssassin settings on each one; not only the scoring gestalts, but also whether messages that are considered spam get deleted, or simply have a [SPAM] tag added in the subject line.
I opt for the tagging. This means that I get all of the email, but with a single filter rule on my mail client (i.e. matching "[SPAM]" in the subject header), I can sort all the questionable stuff to a "Junk" folder and go through it later.
If your ISP drops or deletes spam mail, set your mail up elsewhere, or bitch heavily to your ISP requesting that your spam be tagged instead of nuked. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but there's no reason that any ISP should be risking false positives and having their customers lose legit email.
Analog Spam (Score:1)
What can be done? Well.. (Score:1)
what can be done to avoid giving ISPs and anti-spam companies extensive, fully automated censorship abilities?
Well.. I would have to say one of the services TFA complains about is actually an example of an acceptable way for an ISP to have balance. Postini does not 'delete' any spam, it only quarantines it. And not only that, but when you release a quarantined message, it asks if you wish to make the sender 'approved'. Not only that, but it correctly handles mailings lists because it