Ned Freed wrote:
Granted that it's always dangerous to extrapolate from a small sample.
But is anybody's experience valid, then?
From my perspective, the guys who run these large email systems
generally seem to believe that they have to do whatever they're doing,
Keith, with all due respect, I haven't exactly seen a flood of well-designed
proposals for viable alternatives. Perhaps instead of simply reiterating over
and over that these beliefs are false you should instead try coming up with
an
alternative that demonstrate their falseness.
Well, at the risk of over-extrapolating from scant data again, there
does seem to be some variation in both practice and and the quality of
user experience among mail system operators. So maybe they don't all
"have" to be doing exactly what they're doing now.
regardless of how much the filtering criteria that they're using have
any thing to do with the desirability of the mail to the recipient,
Schemes that attempt to assess the desirability of the email to the recipient
have been tried - personal whitelists, personal Bayesian filters, etc. etc. In
practice they haven't worked all that well, perhaps due to the average user's
inability to capably and consistently perform such assessments.
I think we're saying slightly different things.
It's one thing to say that attempts to use recipient feedback to tune
spam filters on an individual basis has so far not worked well (which is
what I take you to be saying, and which also corresponds to my
understanding).
It's quite another thing to say that the recipient's experience of
existing spam filtering systems (however they are tuned) is irrelevant.
and
regardless of any particular sender's or recipient's actual experience
with having their mail filtered.
Well, sure. When you have a million users it's not only difficult to focus on
an individual user's needs, it's also totally inappropriate.
Mumble. It's those millions of individual users' experiences that
fundamentally matter. If the test cases don't accurately predict their
experiences, then the test cases are wrong.
A more defensible statement is that it's not economically feasible to
pay staff to deal with each of those individual users on an individual
basis, understand their individual problems, and try to fix them on an
individual basis.
IOW, It's very easy for both the individual and the mail system operator
to find reasons to disregard the other's experience. Who is to say who
is right?
Absent a working crystal ball there is of course no way to *know* who's right.
But consider this: If you have cancer, would you be more comfortable taking
that quack nostrum that one guy says cured him or the medication with proven
efficacy in a bunch of double blind clinical trials? That one guy *could* be
right. But is this a chance you want to take?
It's an interesting analogy, because the medical profession (at least in
the US) also seems to have lost its ability to consider the individual
situation of each patient - assuming that individual patients' success
rates will closely correspond to those predicted by aggregate
statistics, and for which typically, only a small number of variables
were considered.
Once again, the crucial issues seem to be transparency, accountability,
granularity rather than the reputation reporting mechanism. Which is
not to say that the mechanism doesn't also warrant improvement.
On this we agree, more or less. But it seems to me that these goals are far
more likely to be met with a set of standardized mechanisms than without.
That's my assumption also.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf