Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


yeah, I saw that -- the message scores 3.7 according to the report, well
under 5.  It's pretty reckless to lower the threshold enough to cause that
to hit as spam.

however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could think
about whitelisting it ;)

- --j.

Dan Kohn writes:
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1807582661;fp;16;fpid;0
> 
> Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier
> 
> Michael Crawford
> 
> 07/07/2005 07:29:27
> 
> The first live run of the Indian Ocean Tsunami warning system earlier
> this month turned out to be a bit of a disaster. 
> 
> Not a natural disaster, but it provided an unexpected result for some
> users of Apache's SpamAssassin. 
> 
> Subscribers to the automated e-mail warning system, which sent out an
> alert for an earthquake off Northern Sumatra that rated 6.7 on the
> Richter scale, found the Tsunami warning notification deferred as spam. 
> 
> The problem arises if the open source filter is installed straight out
> of the box; the messages (usually written in upper case) are not
> considered spam. 
> 
> But for anyone who locks down the spam filter, SpamAssassin categorizes
> the e-mail as spam due to a combination of upper case text in a
> clear-cut format forwarded by a hidden sender. 
> 
> With the spam filters locked down, the warning message - written in the
> original in upper case letters, of: "THERE IS A VERY SMALL POSSIBILITY
> OF A DESTRUCTIVE LOCAL TSUNAMI IN THE INDIAN OCEAN", rates a spam score
> of 3.7 out of 10. 
> 
> Australian National University (ANU) visiting Computer Science Fellow,
> Tom Worthington, said anything that rates over five is considered to be
> spam and a 10 is absolutely spam. 
> 
> "There is also a general concern that the more words the message uses
> will make the rating go even higher," he said. 
> 
> "The indicators on the message are typical of what spam software uses -
> if you work in a government agency there is less of a concern, because
> the system is set up to receive the warnings but there is always the
> risk that computer support will install a spam filter for mail and these
> messages won't get through." 
> 
> Put simply, these dire warnings of a natural disaster will be blocked
> because they will be regarded as spam. 
> 
> "With these sorts of messages you want to make sure they get through ...
> the other interesting thing is previous tests had this exact problem
> with the spam filters," Worthington said. 
> 
> "The Tsunami messages are very official and use clear-cut wording which
> is setting off the spam filters - they need to change format because
> part of the problem is that spammers also try to make messages look
> official." 
> 
> Worthington said he has since been in contact with the Japan
> Meteorological Agency which issues bulletins for the Indian Ocean, and
> with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
> Organization requesting them to redesign the mailouts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFCzdIPMJF5cimLx9ARArQ0AJ9Ww7KkqoBNaSYFUnIZdtm0fJM4WwCeK7Uf
ckn84nDpPdMM8htu5vrFxtQ=
=nWyP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Kelson" <ke...@speed.net>

> Loren Wilton wrote:
> > You must not be referring to the La Palma in/near Los Angeles.
> > A number of us would be rather pleased to see it slide into the ocean.
> 
> The only problem there is it would have to slide through several other 
> cities...  ;-)

<drily>Can we choose the path it takes?</drily>

{^_-}

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Kelson <ke...@speed.net>]

Loren Wilton wrote:
> You must not be referring to the La Palma in/near Los Angeles.
> A number of us would be rather pleased to see it slide into the ocean.

The only problem there is it would have to slide through several other 
cities...  ;-)

-- 
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>]

> All we hope for is that a system is in place by the time half of 
> LaPalma slides into the ocean.  If the predictions are correct, our 
> gulf coast/florida real estate will need all new maps.  The 
> Indonesian tsunami was a ripple in the bathtub in comparison 
> according to some doomsayers.  Google for LaPalma.

You must not be referring to the La Palma in/near Los Angeles.
A number of us would be rather pleased to see it slide into the ocean.

        Loren

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Gene Heskett <ge...@verizon.net>]

On Thursday 07 July 2005 22:16, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Thursday 07 July 2005 21:15, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>>>Justin Mason wrote:
>>>>however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could
>>>>think about whitelisting it ;)
>>>>
>>>>- --j.
>>>>
>>>>>The problem arises if the open source filter is installed
>>>>> straight out of the box; the messages (usually written in upper
>>>>> case) are not considered spam.
>>>
>>>According to the article, we should think about blacklisting the
>>>message. ;)
>>
>> And just exactly what would that accomplish?  And no, I'm not
>> asking that tongue in cheek.  How many might be able to get clear
>> if the message was delivered in a timely manner?
>
>*That* is what the article said -- "the problem arises if [SA] is
>installed straight out of the box, the messages are NOT considered
> spam".
>
>The article, not I, says it's a problem that the message isn't
> tagged as spam by default.  Personally, I think that the fact that
> the message isn't thought to be spam by SpamAssassin is a good
> thing.
>
>As to how many might be able to get clear... unfortunately I don't
>expect that email notifications (even if delivered immediately)
> would help a substantial number of people.  That's not to say it's
> not a worthwhile cause, I certainly think that it is a good idea no
> matter how many or few people it may potential help and I'm glad
> that SpamAssassin, by default, correctly marks the mail as wanted
> mail.

Well, considering that in any one 50 yard wide, 100 yard stretch of 
the beachfront, there may be .1 computers receiving email in real 
time, the problem is so far down in the noise as to be negligent.  
Computers & email facilities tend to be installed/used at more 
permanent locations than a beach bar/tent or chair & umbrella on the 
sand.  That half a hundred meter seperation is probably as important 
as anything else in being the barrier to getting the info to the 
people that need it.

And of course we can waste countless electrons trying to come up with 
a solution from halfway around the planet, but if it doesn't work 
_there_, its of use only as discussion material to keep professional 
conference committee members in supply of subject matter.

All we hope for is that a system is in place by the time half of 
LaPalma slides into the ocean.  If the predictions are correct, our 
gulf coast/florida real estate will need all new maps.  The 
Indonesian tsunami was a ripple in the bathtub in comparison 
according to some doomsayers.  Google for LaPalma.

>Daryl

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>]

Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote on Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:16:57 -0400:

> *That* is what the article said -- "the problem arises if [SA] is 
> installed straight out of the box, the messages are NOT considered spam".

and goes on
"But for anyone who locks down the spam filter, SpamAssassin categorizes 
the e-mail as spam due to a combination of upper case text in a clear-cut 
format forwarded by a hidden sender."

It's just bad English in the first sentence. I think they want to say that 
it does *not* arise in the OOB setup. What they mean by "lockdown" is 
beyond my imagination, though, it's too vague.


Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

["Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 07 July 2005 21:15, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> 
>>Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>>>however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could
>>>think about whitelisting it ;)
>>>
>>>- --j.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The problem arises if the open source filter is installed straight
>>>>out of the box; the messages (usually written in upper case) are
>>>>not considered spam.
>>
>>According to the article, we should think about blacklisting the
>>message. ;)
>>
> 
> And just exactly what would that accomplish?  And no, I'm not asking 
> that tongue in cheek.  How many might be able to get clear if the 
> message was delivered in a timely manner?

*That* is what the article said -- "the problem arises if [SA] is 
installed straight out of the box, the messages are NOT considered spam".

The article, not I, says it's a problem that the message isn't tagged as 
spam by default.  Personally, I think that the fact that the message 
isn't thought to be spam by SpamAssassin is a good thing.

As to how many might be able to get clear... unfortunately I don't 
expect that email notifications (even if delivered immediately) would 
help a substantial number of people.  That's not to say it's not a 
worthwhile cause, I certainly think that it is a good idea no matter how 
many or few people it may potential help and I'm glad that SpamAssassin, 
by default, correctly marks the mail as wanted mail.


Daryl

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>]

From: "Gene Heskett" <ge...@verizon.net>

> On Thursday 07 July 2005 21:15, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> >Justin Mason wrote:
> >> however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could
> >> think about whitelisting it ;)
> >>
> >> - --j.
> >>
> >>>The problem arises if the open source filter is installed straight
> >>> out of the box; the messages (usually written in upper case) are
> >>> not considered spam.
> >
> >According to the article, we should think about blacklisting the
> > message. ;)
> >
> And just exactly what would that accomplish?  And no, I'm not asking 
> that tongue in cheek.  How many might be able to get clear if the 
> message was delivered in a timely manner?

In general nothing can be done about it. All upper case is pretty
good spam-sign. The source of the messages could reduce it to usual
sentence capitalization and solve the problem right out. I would
suggest that the SARE whitelist have the source of these warnings
included. But the rules used by any given site are up to the site
manager's whims and prerogative, as are the scores ultimately.

It would also help if the bozoids involved understood how SA works.
All caps is not a word or letter count sensitive rule.

{^_^}

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

[Gene Heskett <ge...@verizon.net>]

On Thursday 07 July 2005 21:15, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>Justin Mason wrote:
>> however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could
>> think about whitelisting it ;)
>>
>> - --j.
>>
>>>The problem arises if the open source filter is installed straight
>>> out of the box; the messages (usually written in upper case) are
>>> not considered spam.
>
>According to the article, we should think about blacklisting the
> message. ;)
>
And just exactly what would that accomplish?  And no, I'm not asking 
that tongue in cheek.  How many might be able to get clear if the 
message was delivered in a timely manner?

>Daryl

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Tsunami warning hits the spam barrier

["Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>]

Justin Mason wrote:
> however, it'd be nice to get a copy with full headers so we could think
> about whitelisting it ;)
> 
> - --j.

>>The problem arises if the open source filter is installed straight out
>>of the box; the messages (usually written in upper case) are not
>>considered spam. 

According to the article, we should think about blacklisting the message. ;)


Daryl