[governance] spam policy (was: "Net Neutrality ...)

[Dan Krimm]

I don't know whose position that is, but it's not mine.  :-)

I just want to make sure I am in control of my own spam filtering settings,
so that others cannot decide to set the filter too strong to filter out
messages that are not in fact spam.

I was confused by the bounce messages I received.  At first I thought my
own email host was running a spam filter other than the ones they provide
for my direct control, and that would have been disconcerting to say the
least.

But I've figured out where I was getting those messages from: it seems to
be someone on this list with an account at the National Telecommunication
Regulatory Authority in Egypt, which is running the Antigen virus/spam
blocking application from Microsoft (which I checked out and I see that its
spam functions are reported as being a little crude).  Simply mentioning an
offensive keyword seems to have bounced the messages and purged them from
that person's reception, so this person has not received two of my posts
(and I suspect one or more of Vittorio's as well), though they can probably
see those messages on the listserv web site if they care to login and look.

In this case, that individual is prevented from even *discussing* policy
surrounding the offensive topic, above and beyond engaging in the offensive
conduct itself (i.e., advertising or transmitting offensive material).
Seems a little extreme from my western perspective, but perhaps this makes
total sense in Egypt.  Who am I to criticize?

In any case, I am not suggesting that spam filtering is directly related to
net neutrality (that's why I changed the subject header -- this is a
tangential thread).  In particular, as long as such filtering is really
happening "at the edges" then it has nothing to do with intermediate
"pipes" data transport and everything to do with "edges" end-user control
(allowing a broad definition of edge and end-user to include whole
organizations, etc.).

No one is suggesting turning off the filters, but rather providing
end-users full knowledge and control over such filtering.  "Power to the
edges" is a principle that spans both net neutrality and spam filtering.

Best,
Dan


At 1:25 AM -0500 11/9/07, Lee McKnight wrote:
>Am I the only one amused by the position being taken that filtering spam
>is a devilish deviation from net neutrality?
>
> I guess to be logically consistent we should all shut down our spam
>filters so we're  net neutral.
>
>You first...
>
>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>> dan at musicunbound.com 11/08/07 5:13 PM >>>
>At 2:51 PM -0800 11/8/07, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>Dan Krimm wrote:
>>> I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with
>end
>>> users being given maximum control over their settings.
>>
>>Which, in turn, means that users must have a means to know what filters
>>are in effect.
>>
>>This inability to know what is being filtered has caused significant
>>concern and problems here in the US.
>>
>>Many companies that do filtering, whether in software in the user's
>>machine or as something inserted the network path, are often loath to
>>disclose the filters - they consider them to be highly proprietary
>>information.
>>
>>Another potential principle of internet governance:  Every user has the
>>right to know whether their traffic is being filtered and, if so, what
>>those filters are.
>
>
>There is an argument (devil's advocate) that suggests that if it were
>easy
>to find out how the filter algorithm works it could more easily be
>bypassed
>in the constantly-escalating spam wars, thus negating the value of the
>filter tool.
>
>So what is the technical compromise, or is it impossible?
>
>Even if one holds the algorithm close to the chest, it might be useful
>for
>end users to know which messages are being filtered out, though that
>could
>lead to empirical testing by spammers to reverse-engineer the filter
>criteria to some extent (at least, to discover temporarily non-filtered
>options by trial and error).
>
>Short of that, it would be nice to be given a menu of message types to
>filter, and counts of messages filtered out (and if a particular message
>seems like it's legitimate content, to retrieve that message -- but then
>again you increase the ability to reverse-engineer).
>
>What do you suggest here, Karl?
>
>Dan
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance