[BC] If you wonder why email is getting worse

[Cowboy]

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 05:27 pm, Barry Mishkind wrote:

 > Of course, is MUST come to a point where the
 > sheer volume of spam leads the airheads who "run"
 > the Internet to finally agree that most anonymous
 > email must stop.  If someone comes up with a
 > better solution, they will be very rich!

  So far, I'm not ! ( getting very rich )
  The airheads are you, and me.
  Internet is nothing more than interconnection of LAN's
  via WAN's.
  It appears you are viewing internet more like AOL, which is an
  on-line service connected to internet.
  They are vastly different.
  There is no "the internet" and there never was, nor will there
  ever be. "Internet" is much, much more adjective than noun.
  Eventually, perhaps, the majority will embrace solutions that work,
  but that hasn't happened yet.
  When they do, spam will wither and die of it's own weight, but
  not until then !
  For now, disagreebale and as abhorrent as some of us find it,
  it still works !

 >The use of botnets to send spam would not matter
 >as much if e-mail filters could still make
 >effective use of the second spam-fighting
 >strategy: analyzing the content of an incoming
 >message.

  This is one of the ways that Spam-O-Matic is truly better.
  Yes, it analyzes the content, but not in the "conventional" way
  described here.

 >Traditional antispam software examines
 >the words in a text message and, using
 >statistical techniques, determines if the words
 >are more likely to make up a legitimate message or a piece of spam.

  That is the failing of the majority, and THE problem with the 
Microsoft stuff.
  It's basicly the same word list filtering that has existed since about 1979.

 >The explosion of image spam this year has
 >largely thwarted that approach.

  Not with Spam-O-Matic !!
  In fact, it's gotten more effective as a result.
  Yeah, I still get the 300 or so a day, ( personally ) but Spam-O is 
still better than 97% effective.
  Not terrible, considering it was designed for 80% and zero false positives.
  ( there have been three false positives in 2006, so it isn't 
absolutely perfect, but
  they're fixable as per the original design, by the user )

On Thursday 07 December 2006 02:39 pm, nakayle at gmail.com wrote:
 > Webforums are more difficult to manage and archive than e-mail??  I
 > don't see that at all.

  Barry covered it well from an administrators viewpoint, which is where your
  comments seem to come from.
  My view, is as a user.
  E-mail is faster, manageable ( locally ) and MOST important, and OFF-line
  form of communication.
  Yes, Microsoft's everything-is-a-web-page has grabbed many, but there are
  still thousands of us who do not subscribe to that narrow 
always-on-line view.

  Oh, and if you view an image, you HAVE downloaded the "attachment" regardless
  of claims to the contrary !

 > As someone who has
 > used both webforums and email lists for years, I think webforums win
 > hands down.

  Well, as someone who has also used both, for likely more years, but 
maybe not,
  I disagree so vehemently that I've adapted MrPostman to convert 
those web forums
  in which I have any interest at all into e-mail, so I can process it easily.
  ( and what a bi%$# that was !! )

  On Thursday 07 December 2006 03:58 pm, Barry Mishkind wrote:

 > So ... we'll keep an eye out for improvements (especially if we learn
 > that Mailman can be better "tuned up"), while we continue to help one
 > another benefit from our collective knowledge - and, one hopes - lack
 > of hubris.

  Keep watching.
  There are always improvements to be made.
  ( but also keep an open mind as to what really is an improvement )

On Thursday 07 December 2006 04:26 pm, Harold Hallikainen wrote:

 > I use
 > spamcop.net on my mail server to reject email from reported spammers.

  There are good and severe reasons Spam-O does not, WILL not, use these
  types of blacklists.
  Far, FAR too many legitimate sources are incorrectly listed, and there is no
  way to fix the problem, save appealing to the arrogance of the list manager.

 > I
 > then run the email through Spam Assassin. These reject something like
 > 10,000 spams a month.

  Spam Assassin is very good, but a maintenance headache.
  ( and hugely overly complex, IMHO )
  It's free, though, so there is that.

 > Another 50 or so that get through per day are
 > reported to spamcop.net . Eventually I hope all the zombies out there are
 > listed on spamcop!

  Spam-O doesn't care.
  Spamcop is one way. Just far from a good way, in my opinion.

On Thursday 07 December 2006 04:50 pm, Al Stewart wrote:
 > Spamcop is fine -- to a point. I have a problem with them because 
they keep blacklisting legitimate senders.

  I suppose I've already addressed that.

  It was recently pointed out to me, that Spam-O can allow certain types of
  desired "spam" while denying all others.
  Blacklists sites, like Spamcop and the RTBS will never achieve that level
  of sophistication by design.

  Yes, spam is a problem.
  Until people start doing it right, it will continue to be a growing problem.

  Paul Graham got it right, and spawned a whole new breed
  of anti-spam techniques, including Spam-O.
  It's a shame more don't realize that he WAS right then, and remains so now.
  At least one of the spawn still works, and as designed, adapts and flourishes
  as the spammers "improve."

-- 
Cowboy