[unisog] Anti-Spam task force/team
thomas_duvally at brown.edu
Thu May 8 18:24:36 GMT 2003
This in not meant to be a large group. We envision a small
team/group/committee to aid in policy, educate and aid in the fight on
campus. Maybe the use of the term "task force" was a little over
dramatic on my part.
Unfortunatly, in our environment, there will always be someone who
thinks that one message from their auntie was the end of the world, and
I don't have the authority to tell them "too bad". Which translates
into "You lost my e-mail! The entire IT department sucks. 1st amendment!
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 13:57, Ben Curran wrote:
> I'll have to agree with Gary on this one. (don't form yet another "task force"--- pretty
> please!) If it takes a "large group" to educate the user base on how to deal with
> spam, then so be it. Personally, I feel that offering training on configuring centralized
> or point-solution filtering might be the most helpful for users who feel the need, and
> that no "large groups" need exist. (At the local level) Indeed, this training might best
> be offered by very small groups.
> It must be remembered that spam is taking valuable resources in terms of bandwidth
> time and energy from otherwise profitable/academic (No pun intended) pursuits. In
> this case, sinking large amounts of people power in terms of commitees, task forces,
> interest groups etc. etc ad nauseum only adds to the problem.
> Filter it and forget it. If I miss one message from my aunt Mary in Ohio, oh well. I'll
> On 8 May 2003 at 12:05, Thomas DuVally wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 11:22, Gary Flynn wrote:
> > > Being a believer in committee reproduction control, I'm not
> > > sure I see a need for having a group to create a "clearing
> > > house for spam info".
> > >
> > At a largish organization, I think it would be necessary to create a
> > local group to pass on and contextualize (my big word for today)
> > information for the community. The average person (student, faculty and
> > staff) isn't interested in the latest release of Bayesian filtering
> > tools, but does want a way to handle spam. I think a dedicated group
> > could provide that connection.
> > > Policy wise, the biggest thing to address is probably the
> > > compromise between false positives and false negatives in
> > > filtering solutions. I suspect you'll get widely varying
> > > opinions on whether to err on the side of stopping SPAM
> > > or getting the mail through.
> > >
> > Agreed, and that would be the main focus of a group. Aid in policy
> > creation by being a knowledge pool, and offer solutions to concerns
> > about each side (too much, or not enough)
> > > I personally believe it best to leave that decision up
> > > to individual users if the mail system in question allows
> > > that.
> > >
> > I also agree with this. We are a "tag and pass through" kinda shop,
> > mostly since we are seen as a liberal university, its BAD to restrict
> > any content, but we provide the tools the users can decide with.
> > > As far as whether it is a security problem, since security
> > > involves availability of services you could certainly put
> > > it there...along with everything else. :)
> > This is an emerging concern. We have yet to really get a grasp on it,
> > but we know it's there and don't like what it could mean. We want to be
> > sure we have both sides covered: provide the services, ensure the
> > services are safe.
> > --
> > TJ Du Vally
> Network Specialist and General Factotum
> Humboldt State University
> c/o Telecommunications & Network Services
> 1 Harpst St. Arcata, CA 95521
> Phone: (707)826-5000
> FAX: (707)826-6161
> Email: bdc1 at humboldt.edu
TJ Du Vally
More information about the unisog