By: Dan Wallace

Dan Wallace — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:23:12 +0000

As a member of the company that makes both the consumer and enterprise versions of the ChoiceMail permission-based anti-spam product, I would like to respond to RobÂ’s comments on several points.
First, Rob, your math is wrong. In the 7 months youÂ’ve been using K9, you have received 7317 pieces of spam. Of those, K9 allowed 483 into your inbox and required you to “reclassify” them. So itÂ’s accuracy rate is more like 93%, not the 99% you claim. By comparison, in the two years IÂ’ve been using ChoiceMail, it has blocked more than 60,000 pieces of spam and allowed in ZERO (while not causing me to lose any legitimate mail). IÂ’ll have another look at the numbers just to be sure, but I think this means I win.
Second, you are correct that evolving spammer tactics cause K9 to work well for a while, then suddenly let in a flurry of spam. One of the key advantages of the permission-based approach used in ChoiceMail is that it is completely immune to these changing tactics. In fact, filters like K9 are precisely why there is so much spam. The bad guys flood the Internet with junk mail hoping to find weak spots, and as you confirm, they do. It is entirely possible to shut the spammers down Â– all it would take is for every inbox to be protected by a permission-based email manager like ChoiceMail. That will do it. Anything less simply invites the spammers to keep looking for new loopholes, which you acknowledge they continue to find. So rather than help solve the problem, by using a filter like K9 you are actually making things worse for everybody.
Third is the underlying philosophy of permission-based email. You are absolutely correct that ChoiceMail transfers the burden (and cost) of dealing with spam to the sender. ThatÂ’s precisely where it belongs. When you send a letter or make a phone call, who pays for it? Transferring the responsibility for spam to senders is both appropriate and by far the cheapest way to deal with spam. We calculate that most people receive on average about two legitimate emails per month from senders they donÂ’t already know. If you figure, generously, that it takes 15 seconds to respond to a challenge message, the global cost of challenge/response, if it were universal, would be about 30 seconds per month per user. That is an amount most people would consider imperceptible, not burdensome. It is certainly far less than the time you spend reading and “reclassifying” the spam that gets past your filter.
Most interesting, though, is your statement that your “resent” not being pre-approved to send email to people whom you have never emailed before. This reflects an underlying belief that you the right to have access to anyoneÂ’s inbox at any time. It is difficult to ask this question politely, but here goes: Precisely who do you think you are, and what is it about you or the email you send that is so special, that you feel you should have this right? No one will talk to you on the phone, much less let you into their home, without knowing who you are and what you want. This is a foundational norm of human communication. Do you resent it when a secretary asks, “May I ask whoÂ’s calling and what this is regarding?” What is the rationale for treating email any differently? My attitude is precisely the opposite of yours. If you called me and refused to identify yourself, I would hang up. If you arenÂ’t willing to spend a few seconds – the first time you email me – verifying that you are a legitimate sender, you are implicitly telling me that your message actually isnÂ’t very important and that I wonÂ’t miss much if I donÂ’t see it.
A last note to “Dan”, who previously commented on RobÂ’s message. In ChoiceMail, whitelisting domains on which you have posted your email address is completely unnecessary. If you are expecting an automated message (i.e., a sales confirmation), it is trivial to open ChoiceMail and approve it, which whitelists that address, so future messages come through. Moreover, ChoiceMail provides virtual email addresses designed specifically for purposes such as online shopping and newsletters. As Rob says, there are many challenge/response solutions out there, including some offered by ISPs (a few powered by ChoiceMail by the way). Essentially every objection that has been raised about permission-based email and challenge/response comes from people who a) havenÂ’t actually tried it, and/or b) confuse the concept with specific implementation issues. Few implementers have actually gotten the details right, which matters for a good user experience.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 04:55:55 +0000

Hey thanks for that, Rob Vonderhaar, I just downloaded K9 and it looks great
I was using ChoiceMail for about a few months, but it was rather annoying when I filled in my email info on a website but then I had to open ChoiceMail to give that domain access. Once I gave the chris pirillo show access to recieve the interactive show password and instead it was a different domain. This happened a lot.
I'm confident this will weed them out nicely. =)
-Dan

Comments on: ChoiceMail

By: Dan Wallace

By: Anonymous