Return to sender
To people of my generation the word “spam” has several different meanings.
It was, (and still is), for example, the brand name for a tinned, cooked, luncheon meat, first launched as long ago as 1937. The name SPAM, (it should be in capital letters), could be derived from “spiced ham” or “spiced pork and ham“, depending on the source – but other, less complimentary versions as “something posing as meat” have also been suggested over the years.
During and immediately after the second world war, when fresh meat was strictly rationed and expensive, such tinned meats were imported to the UK – Corned Beef from Argentina, and SPAM from the US – and for a time it became a cheap, “popular” alternative. Over the course of time, however, as the economic situation improved and people were able to return to a diet containing fresh meat, this “popularity” declined. Spam retained a large slice of the British market amongst lower economic classes, however, and, as in the States, became associated with economic hardship.
I can’t say that I was ever fond of it … if anything, I was rather indifferent to it, but then my mother rarely served it up … maybe just once a week.
That changed in 1970 … I only that it was in 1970 because I looked it up… with Monty Python. Now, to be honest, as a teenager, I was fairly indifferent to Monty Python as well. I found it rather strange and quirky … However, such was the cultish effect of the programme, no-one could really escape it. It was in 1970 that one episode closed with the now classic Spam sketch. You can catch it on You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
I remember being mildly bemused, embarrassed and frustrated when, sitting in an Oxford Cafe, two of my friends burst into reciting the sketch … much to the amusement of the customers … but not to the owners of the Cafe. I don’t remember if I ever went back there … but I suspect not.
That Monty Python sketch is accredited with coining a new usage for the word – for unsolicited mass mailings by email, SMS, on internet Bulletin Boards and so on. The Vikings bursting into a chorus of “Spam, Spam, spam, … lovely Spam, Wonderful Spam” drowned out any possibility of meaningful conversation – and someone drew the parallel with the effect created by electronic “junk mail”.
The days when people skipped downstairs when they heard the letterbox rattle in anticipation to see what the postman had brought them had long since past. Already, people knew that along with the odd letter from loved ones and relatives, business letters and birthday cards, there would be bills … and, of course, “junk mail”. This unsolicited marketing “information” already outweighed those missives which were personal and welcome.
With the advance of technology, this unsolicited mail then evolved to becoming unsolicited faxes. I remember designing a form for the school to fax back in reply, adopting a strategy developed in the states – informing the culprits that they were remove us from their distribution list and that, in future, we would invoice them one pound for every page of unsolicited fax we received from them. Later, I even adopted the same policy when it came to email. I even sent off a few invoices. It did no good, of course, apart from making us feel a little bit better, that is.
From this, you’ll understand that I get as sick and fed up as the next man about the number of spam emails that I get. There is something that I find even more annoying, however: the reliance upon spam filters and the difficulties that arise from the unforeseen consequences that arise when people operate one.
Some spam filters work on the basis of a statistical analysis …
- is the URL of the sender on a blacklist
- are some of the headers missing: Message Id header, Date header …
- does the subject line contain certain words … or attempt to obfuscate words …
- does the body of the message contain certain types of format common in spam messages …
- does the message mention certain types of phrases … e.g. millions of dollars, “$xx,xxx,xxx” …
- … and so on …
The filter calculates a score, and if this exceeds a threshold, then it is treated as spam. On the basis of this score it then decides what action to take …
The problem is that sometimes, the spam filter makes mistakes. Some spam messages get through the filter … others are classified as spam when they aren’t. (Although, to be fair, Google’s g-mail spam filter seems to be pretty efficient and seems to make very few mistakes. – No, they are not paying me for an endorsement!)
So, where that action is to send the message to the spam box, or spam folder, then this strikes me as OK – even quite useful. It separates the messages out so that I can start concentrating on the ones that it has passed as OK … but I still have the one’s it thought were spam and can check them.
The trouble is that many spam filters then decide not to deliver the message … they either or the simply send you a message saying that there was a message – but fortunately they usually include the headers so that it is still possible to decide to contact the sender in case it looks as if it really was a genuine message … or they send it back – “Return to Sender”.
This, I find a real problem.
Frankly, I want to receive the message. It’s annoying having to go through the spam folder checking to see if the messages are interesting or not … but at least I have that option. It takes time, but not that much. However, as I said, sometimes the spam filter makes mistakes. Generally, I am not a control freak, but I do want to be in control of deciding which messages I can ignore and which ones I cannot.
Even in the world of snail mail … letters and packets HAVE to be delivered … the postman can be prosecuted for “interfering” with the mail if they fail to do so … so why should an internet service provider, transporting mail electronically, be treated any differently?
Some time ago we were getting messages in a roundabout way, (by phone calls, via faxes … or messages routed through friends), from friends and relatives – and form clients – that messages were being returned to them as undeliverable … our service provider had introduced a new antispam program which involved returning messages that it identified as spam – or potentially as spam – to their senders. Unfortunately, one of the criteria for deciding that a message was probably spam was based on the sender’s address. Whole servers were blacklisted … including some of the biggest service providers in Europe … Apparently we could send them messages, but not receive messages from them. We were being cut off from communicating with our clients.
When I looked into it, the service provider said: a) their customers had voted, overwhelmingly, for it and b) it was possible to override the system – all we had to do was to tell our correspondents to follow a particular procedure to clear the particular address from the blacklist.
I am afraid that I hit the roof … and explained that a) although I am one of their customers and, as it happens, I didn’t vote for the new system … even if I had then would still be upset because it wasn’t clear when the question was asked what the implications were … it is one thing to say that the system would reduce the amount of spam arriving in our mailboxes – which was made clear – but another to say that we would not be able to receive messages from some people, simply because their email address ended with yahoo.com or wanadoo.fr.
Further when it came to their second argument … firstly, these people writing to me are my clients … and I am being asked to put them in the position where they have to undertake a complex procedure in order to send me mail … we are a service industry, (just as email service providers are), and it is incumbent upon us to make life easier for our clients – not put difficulties in their way and, more importantly, secondly, I don’t know who is writing to me … whom, apparently, I have to tell to “clear” their email address. How can I tell them? I don’t know who they are. I don’t know who is writing to me … because I am not getting their messages! Not only had there service deteriorated … I was now receiving what I considered to be bad service … inconsiderate service … and and an interference in service which in other circumstances – “snail mail” – would, in fact, be illegal.
Of course, I had one option … change my service providers. I did!
That was a few years ago, but having solved that particular problem by changing service providers, I now find myself, apparently, on the other side of the same dilemma … this time it is not the fact that I am not receiving messages … my messages are not getting through!
I have started receiving “Failure Notices” which say things like …
Connected to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 550 SC-001 Mail rejected by Windows Live Hotmail for policy reasons. Reasons for rejection may be related to content with spam-like characteristics or IP/domain reputation problems. If you are not an email/network admin please contact your E-mail/Internet Service Provider for help. Email/network admins, please visit http://postmaster.live.com for email delivery information and support
At least they are telling me … so I know that I have a problem and can try to find a solution.
Some of the messages are straight forward text messages … and, although I don’t think there are any, I have tried sending a variety of “test” messages to see if I can determine if it is a problem with “spam-like characteristics” … it seems that I am right … there aren’t any … all my messages are being blocked … so it’s down to ” IP/domain reputation problems”.
Well, I visited the postmaster site … and tried to “clear” my IP/domain address … it’s not a simple process and I can see why they say you need to contact your e-mail/internet provider for help. On the other hand they have to try and provide so much information that they probably cannot do it without detailed information from me.
I can understand why people find sending spam an attractive option … it cheap, requires very little effort, gets the message in front of lots of readers very quickly … and so on. Even if it is cheap, it is not “free”. There are costs involved for everyone involved … the sender, (for whom the cost is pretty minimal), the internet and email providers who have to provide the transmission facilities and the receiver who will have traffic charges (even if they are a tariff which allows unlimited traffic), storage space on their system – and, of course, the time taken to read and sift through the piles of “junk” mail. That’s part of the reasoning behind making “spamming” illegal in many jurisdictions.
It’s not just a case that spam is annoying – there is an economic impact.
As I said, I find spam an annoyance … I do not really want to spend my time sifting through messages offering to enhance parts of the body – the parts that I have yet alone those that I don’t have; offering me cut price medicines, watches, software or other goods that I am not interested in buying – and probably wouldn’t want to buy over the internet anyway; that tell me I have won a prize or inherited millions, or that I can participate in some some fantastic investment opportunity … or any of the other forms that are so common. I get far more spam than “real” mail – newsletters, birthday or greetings cards, messages form family, friends or clients.
On the other hand, I do want to know that I have received messages that were intended for me … and that messages I have sent intended for someone else, have been received.
OK – that’s me off my soapbox … for now.
Bishkek