Skip to content

BlogIndustry

Wired Magazine Says Spam Filters Suck

Ken Simpson

1 min read

Updated

Now that I am in San Francisco for the MAAWG conference, I feel it is only appropriate that I give a plug to the magazine that made geekdome cool. Wired has a feature this month on “why things suck” (with the comedic input of Sarah Silverman). One of their top picks: Spam Filters. Brendan I. Koerner writes:

The most obvious problem is that it’s simply not possible to update filtering software frequently enough to catch all of the spammers’ multifarious innovations — disguising unsolicited messages by replacing the “i” in Viagra with a “1” or using images in lieu of text, for example. At the same time, an overly aggressive approach can be disastrous, trapping legitimate email as false positives.

I think the Viagra example is a simplification, but the idea that filters are too slow to adapt is accurate. In my talk later this week, I will posit a theory that even as filters become faster, there is always going to be a computational mismatch between the spammers and the filters — one that the filters will always lose.

Comments are welcome — they will help me to hone my pitch.

Stay updated with MailChannels

Subscribe to the MailChannels Blog to receive new blog posts in your inbox.

Start with your app’s email

Create an account

Send your first email in minutes, with 100 free emails a day. No sales call needed.

Running a platform?

Move one workflow to us, with written success criteria, and judge the result.