{"id":391,"date":"2003-02-08T12:23:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-08T12:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.jmatt.net\/?p=391"},"modified":"2013-12-08T17:00:50","modified_gmt":"2013-12-08T22:00:50","slug":"more-on-spam","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/?p=391","title":{"rendered":"More on Spam"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a <a title=\"Spam, spam, wonderful spam\" href=\"http:\/\/blog.jmatt.net\/?p=405\">recent blogging<\/a>, I supported the idea of legislation creating a &#8220;do-not-spam&#8221; list, similar do the &#8220;do-not-call&#8221; list that many states require telemarketers to obey. Now a recent <a href=\"http:\/\/www.wired.com\/news\/business\/0,1367,57585,00.html?tw=wn_ascii\">Wired article<\/a> says two states are considering that idea.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>According to the article: &#8220;In the losing battle against spam, two states (CO and MO) are considering a novel approach: the creation of &#8216;do not e-mail&#8217; registries patterned after the statewide &#8216;do-not-call&#8217; lists that restrict the activities of telemarketers.&#8221;<br \/>\nIn all modesty, I didn&#8217;t think it was novel when I suggested it; I thought it was a no-brainer.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the militant anti-spam activitists don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s strong enough: &#8220;Antispam activists &#8230; charge that opt-out lists unfairly put the onus on consumers to remove themselves from spam databases&#8221;. Several of the anti-spam organizations are still pushing for a complete spam ban. While I wouldn&#8217;t oppose such a ban, I don&#8217;t buy their argument against the opt-out list, as long as it&#8217;s centralized (statewide or even nationwide). Certainly the existing situation, where spammers claim they&#8217;ll stop spamming anybody that asks them to, is useless. For one thing, there&#8217;s no enforcement. For another, I do agree that it&#8217;s an unreasonable burden for consumers to contact every spammer and say &#8220;Stop&#8221;. But anybody who&#8217;s too stinkin lazy to put his name and address on <b>one<\/b> list, which will be legally binding on all spammers, deserves all the spam he gets.<\/p>\n<p>And I still think filters are a bad idea and refuse to use them. It&#8217;s common to see people brag about how many spam messages their filters are trapping. If I was getting that much spam, I might consider a filter. But by judicious use of technology, I&#8217;ve managed to keep spam to a reasonable level; just a few messages per day, and all to addresses that I could easily quit using if the spam level got too high. It&#8217;s trivially easy for a live person who knows my name but not my email address to get a message to me (can you say Google?), but more than a little difficult for spambots to suck up a valid email address from anywhere.<\/p>\n<p>The problem with spam filters is that it&#8217;s easy to measure their &#8220;false negatives&#8221; (how many spam messages slip through), but not their &#8220;false positives&#8221; (how many legitimate messages get blocked). Unless you look at all the blocked messages, which defeats the purpose of the filter, how do you know you&#8217;re not losing important mail? In my opinion, one accidentally discarded message is too many. Suppose that one was <a title=\"Fox(?) Hunting\" href=\"http:\/\/blog.jmatt.net\/?p=422\">Kylie<\/a> offering to drop by with a 6-pack? If a filter threw it away because it didn&#8217;t recognize the source, I wouldn&#8217;t be able to tell her not to bother bringing any of that lite crap.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a recent blogging, I supported the idea of legislation creating a &#8220;do-not-spam&#8221; list, similar do the &#8220;do-not-call&#8221; list that many states require telemarketers to obey. Now a recent Wired article says two states are considering that idea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-geekstuff","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9mOtr-6j","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.redhorse.me\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}