At 05:23 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Just ran across this quote from the John Gilmore of the EFF
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-04927.html):
----snip----
After years of divisive discussions, a very similar pledge/oath/policy was
what EFF was able to come to agreement on:
"Any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach
their intended recipients."
Perhaps none of us has yet come up with a silver bullet to solve the
problem of spam -- but it IS within our power to solve the problem of
overzealous anti-spam measures.
----snip----
Oh cool, sound bites. Here's some from me;
"We must be sure the cure is better than the disease."
"Strive for 0 false positives and 0 false negatives, but remember TANSTAAFL."
"A new solution only needs to be better than the current one, not perfect."
"A flood of spam can drown out speech as easily as a tyrant if we don't
take action against it."
Seriously, too much spam can cause false positives.
I've deleted non-spam when filtering by hand, and I'm sure others
have too. Not losing any non-spam messages is the goal, but
anything better than what we have currently is acceptable.
And as other have pointed out, if it's a tradeoff between
false positives and false negatives, it's up to the receiver
to decide which is preferable. Parents of young children
might choose fewer false negatives, while a brokerage house
might choose fewer false positives, and that's as it should be.
Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg