[LINK] Minister warned on porn filters

[Ivan Trundle]

On 01/01/2008, at 9:13 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:

> I would say it's ANU's spam filters cutting in.  Tony would be able  
> to tell unless the spam filters decide the email is so bad it's  
> dropped without bothering to tell anyone.

That's bad enough. The word 'porn' should not exclude a mail message  
from distribution, unless the ANU is living in the 19th century.

> Believe me you all want the spam filters in place, you really really  
> do.  The false positives are a bitch though.

I disagree. A poor spam filter is worse than none at all.

I get over 1500 spam messages a day in one account, with no false  
positives (any rarely more than 2 or 3 a week that are really spam  
getting through), and certainly nothing as preposterous as cutting out  
any message with the string 'porn' embedded. The filter that I choose  
to use is intelligent enough to work this out.

What irks me is that weak filters make bold assumptions about what is  
and what isn't spam, based on loose and poorly constructed rules and  
presumptions.

I'll never forget the day that an ex-boss complained bitterly about  
her exclusion from various mailing lists and more, based purely on the  
fact that the first six letters of her e-mail address just happened to  
be 'virgin'.

iT