For those of you who insist on making it painful to send you email (anything beyond a simple click or cut-and-paste without further editing), time to change your ways and not make your fear of spam make extra work for those of us who simply want to say hello, and maybe ask you to review a paper.
Are you saying that obfuscating one's email address is a good method to avoid writing referee reports? ;-)ReplyDelete
Gmail has a huge number of false negatives though.ReplyDelete
Unfortunately, not at all. There is a drop since November 13, 2008 (you can see the reason here and here ).ReplyDelete
But you know what? Spam will be over on the day when you get 0 mails in your spam folder. And I don't think Gmail's filters, as smart as they can be (and they really do a great job) are the solution. The solution is something much bigger (and unfortunately seemingly distant), like adding authenticity to SMTP or finding ways to stop the spam bots to the invisible minimum.
Personalized spam rising sharply, study findsReplyDelete
Anonymous, you mean false positives, right? (legit email going to the spam folder)ReplyDelete
Spam is still a huge, expensive problem even if most end users, like Lance, are largely shielded from the pain.
And I'm not sure Lance is quite right. For one thing there's the unsettling tradeoff being made between less spam in the inbox and greater risk of false positives. False positives are often never detected, another way in which the true cost of spam is hidden.
False positives are often never detected, another way in which the true cost of spam is hidden.ReplyDelete
Can't you reduce false positives by asking the sender to solve a CAPTCHA whenever his/her email is classified as spam?
Yeah, I get virtually no spam. Less than one a day now.ReplyDelete
I agree about people making it easy to send them email. I have my email address on my web page with an "a href=mailto:" link to make it as easy as possible for people to contact me. The idea that spammers collect e-mail addresses by crawling the web and pattern-matching has seemed pretty dubious to me for a while now. Is there any evidence that they do that? There are easier ways to get lists of e-mail addresses. And even if they do, most of the basic workarounds you see are easily pattern-matched themselves, so what's the point?