Re: E-greeting card firm wins Microsoft case

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Mitch Stone wrote:

> --- From a message sent by James Love on 12/22/98 9:02 AM ---
>
> >"Microsoft's own greeting cards get routed to the same folder".  As with
> >other disputes regarding interoperability with Microsoft products, I
> >don't think Mr. Philla's comments are necessarily the last word on this.
>
> I'd certainly like to hear Blue Mountain respond to this statement, or to
> have Microsoft's claim independently verified. This should not be a
> matter of speculation and conjecture -- either it's true or it's not.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is true.  Microsoft may be innocent on
this one.  It's just not possible to write a foolproof spam blocker.  It's a
similar problem to those "pornography blockers."  Remember, they filtered
out words like "breast" only to have the Breast Cancer support groups
blocked.  Spam blockers that look for words like "free" and "cash" - what
else will they filter out?  Free Software Foundation.  Fat Free Foods.
Johnny Cash.

This type of spam filter seems rather simpleminded.  Microsoft's real sin
was to set up such a simpleminded form of spam filtering.

My ISP also filters spam.  LIke that in IE, it's off by default.  You can
turn it on or you can configure it in all sorts of ways - none of them user
friendly.  But if you turn it on, they're much more restrictive than this.
They not only block stuff that looks like spam, they have very rigorous
standards.  Amazon.com fell afoul of them because they did not say on their
form that if you gave your email address it would be used for promotional
purposes.  Amazon even snailmailed to all their customers on my ISP asking
them to protest it.  Mcs.net wouldn't back down.  They'll also block
**everything** from sites that merely allow spam to issue from them.  I
periodically check a file of blocked emails to see if they blocked anyone I
want email from, and I have to lift the filter for these individuals.  It's
a bit of a pain, but so is spam.

You have to be careful.  One option my ISP offered was one to "bounce" back
to the adminstrator of the spam site a nastygram telling them not to spam.
Without thinking, I enabled this.  Of course with my ISP's liberal
definition of spam, nastygrams were sent where they shouldn't have been,
including to juno.com where my MOTHER has an account.  juno responded to the
nastygram by not delivering any more emails from my mother to me, even after
I lifted the filter.  I quickly removed that option.  To this day, juno.com
won't deliver email from my mother to me.

It's not an easy thing to do, and people who enable spam filters should be
warned.  In fairness to Microsoft, however, they didn't invent this (so what
else is new) and they're not the first to be bitten by it.

>
>
> None of the articles or statements I've seen so far even attempt to
> address the relevant technical questions, in particular the criteria used
> by Microsoft to filter spam. This is hardly a trivial matter, given the
> immense censorship powers placed in the hands of filter designers.
> Consumers ought to have this information made available to them before
> they elect to use a spam filter, whether it's Microsoft's or someone
> else's. The stakes are even higher given that the spam filter is
> "integrated" into IE, which is in turn "integrated" into Windows.
>
> Mitch Stone
> mstone@vc.net

Microsoft has certainly been hit in the trust department.  The "wouldn't put
it past 'em" effect is so strong now they get blamed even if they aren't
guilty.