September 2002 The real test of any technique for eliminating spam is not how much spam you can stop, but how much spam you can stop without stopping a significant amount of legitimate email. That is, how do you design a defense against spam so that the error in the system is nearly all in the direction of false negatives rather than false positives? One great advantage of Bayesian filtering is that it generates few false positives. This is the main reason I prefer it to other antispam techniques, particularly blacklisting. Simply blocking mail from any server listed on a blacklist, as some ISPs do now, is in effect a clumsy form of filtering-- one that generates a large number of false positives, and yet only catches a small percentage of spam. Spammers seem to have little trouble staying a step ahead of blacklists. Blacklists have been around for years. If they worked, we'd know by now. But according to a recent study, the MAPS RBL, probably the best known blacklist, catches only 24% of spam, with 34% false positives. It would take a conscious effort to write a content-based filter with performance that bad. Another advantage of filtering over blacklisting is that there is less potential for abuse. Like other kinds of vigilantes, antispam vigilantes often do more damage than the problem they're fighting. The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (among others) have all condemned the practices of groups like MAPS. The problem is not just that these groups' methods are unethical. Their unethical methods are why their numbers are bad. The worst of them will blacklist anyone who makes them mad enough, whether their server is a source of spam or not. Obviously, this is not going to generate very good filtering performance. In effect, MAPS wastes most of its bullets on civilians. Bayesian filters, because they're just programs, don't take spam personally. As a result, they make fewer mistakes. So if you want to fight spam, work on filters. (Think globally, act locally.) This approach is not only more effective, it's also less likely to turn you into a nut. I'm not saying it's a waste of time to keep track of spam sources. But I do think that whether an email comes from a server on a list of (supposed) spam sources is just one piece of evidence among many, and probably fairly unimportant evidence compared to the content of the email. Ultimately, I think filters will put a stop to groups like MAPS. They only have the power that they do because ISPs are desperate and feel they have no alternative. If ISPs start to do content-based filtering, or know that their users are, they won't have to rely on such crude methods much longer. More Info:
Internet News: When Spam Policing Gets Out of Control
EFF: Statement Regarding Anti-Spam Measures
Network World: The Spam Police
ZDNet: Spam: The Last Crusade
When Everything Was Spam to ISP
Coalition Statement Against "Stealth Blocking"
Slashdot: MAPS RBL is now Censorware
CNET: Canning Spam Without Eating Up Real Mail