Subject: Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:18:49 -0600 (MDT)

> From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>

> >  Besides, mailing list traffic tends to be
> > "white listed" and so bypass individual spam filters.
>
> Which is why some of us would encourage the use of
> techniques that make mailing lists less attractive
> to opportunistic spammers.
>
> I feel dizzy.

I've run spam filters for a big commercial outfit, where people reasonably
preferred to deal with spam than to fail to communicate with customers or
prospects.  In such situations, unless your false positive rate rejects
fewer than 1 legitimate message per month, you should be castigated
and your filters turned off.
IETF lists have sufficient reasons to be just as open.  All of the
proposals for filtering the IETF's lists would have false postive rates
far worse than 1/month, where delays of more than 24 hours count as a
false positive.  Because of the nature of the traffic on the main IETF
list, I suspect the false positive rate would be approach 10% (except in
threads like this where the false negative rate be about 100%, because
we're all subscribers making this noise).

In other words, there are reasons why I only suggested that the
IETF-filtered list use the DCC body filtering.

There is something else about the proposals to impose additional
filters on this list that really bugs me.  I suspect that many of
those demanding that this list be filtered did not bother to do anything
about the recent spam, while those of us opposed all did do something.

There is only one thing that prevents those who want a spam-free IETF list
from having it.  In theory, someone could subscribe a reflector to the
main list or the overseas filtered list, and then run it like an ordinary
moderated list.  Others who want such filtering could subscribe to it.
In theory, everyone would be happy.  Unfortunately, there is that one
thing preventing global contentment.  At least one of those who want such
filtering would have to do some extra work.  This obviously would not
implement or run itself with the demands that someone else take care of it.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:42:29 -0700

Vernon Schryver wrote:
	[..]
> false positive.

I think you're exaggerating a few things. First, the main proposal
in this thread is subscribe-before-post, which suffers no false
positives if you... ummm... subscribe before you post. Second,
since when has the IETF's activities been so urgent that a 24hr
delay on a "I forgot to subscribe before posting" email would be
mind-blowingly critical? (IMO, never. But hey, I take walks in the
sun every so often...)

I don't recall this thread seriously focusing on content filtering
(*being* filtered, sure ;)

	[..]
> from having it.

Since I don't recall seeing absolute 'spam-free'-ness being a
design goal, I'm not sure who "those" people are. But then again,
I take walks....

cheers,
gja
____________________________________________________________________
Grenville Armitage                http://members.home.net/garmitage/