discuss: Subscription Validation
Subject:
Re: Subscription Validation
From:
John Fleck ####@####.####
Date:
9 Sep 2002 20:44:10 -0000
Message-Id: <20020909144404.A27201@inkstain.net>
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:17:07PM -0600, Mark Lane wrote:
>
> This is silly. It's you who is missing my point.
>
No. I think we understand one another's points here. We just disagree.
> >Is it the responsibility of the person sending legitimate email to tailor
> >their content to ensure it does not get trapped by spam filters?
>
> If you know that your content triggers spam filters, you will want to
> modify email not to. There are lots of broken spam scanning software out
> there.
>
> >Or is it the responsibility of the spam filter's user?
>
> You can't rely on someone else to configure things right. That's just
> asking for trouble.
>
There is both a practical issue here and an important principle.
I assume it would be relatively trivial for David to figure out why
SpamAssassin is triggering on tldp's missive and change his setup
accordingly. It also, as has been suggested by others, would be trivial for
you to tweak your SpamAssassin setup to allow tldp's mail through.
The practical issue is, as you said, "there are lots of broken spam scanning
software out there." Your argument, by extension, suggests that it is David's
responsibility to be alert to all the potential reasons all the broken spam
scanning software might be snagging tldp mail. My argument is that if people
want to use software to screen spam out of their email, they need to take
responsibility for the false positive problem themselves. There is simply no
practical way for senders to ensure their mail runs the myriad of gauntlets.
The principle, though, is more important than the practical problem, in
my view. By placing the responsibility on the sender, your argument allows the
authors of spam filters to serve as censors, forcing the sender to avoid
discussing certain prescription drugs or body parts (I carefully avoid
mentioning their names here to avoid SpamAssassin's scoring algorithms) or
using certain perfectly legitimate html conventions. Down this path lies
madness, and I fear in the battle to constrain the spam flood, many of us are
unwittingly giving up some of the freedoms of communication.
That is why I stand on principle here.
John
P.S. My ISP uses SpamAssassin, with a nice web interface that allows me to
check the kill file at my convenience and tweak the settings. I'm not happy
with the fact that I have to do this, but it's better than the inbox
invasion.
