A New York Times article by Brad Stone on the state of spam (Spam Doubles, Finding New Ways to Deliver Itself) confirms everything KnujOn has been saying for 3 years. In articles, presentations, whitepapers, editorials, lectures and regular news updates at this site KnujOn has repeatedly put forth the argument that content blocking and filtering alone will not solve the problem. We have 8 main arguments against relying on spam filtering. See how quotes from this article match up to those points:

"...according to Ironport, a spam filtering firm, and unsolicited junk mail now accounts for more than 9 of every 10 e-mail messages sent over the Internet."
"Image spam increased fourfold from last year and now represents 25 to 45 percent of all junk e-mail, depending on the day, Ironport says."
"Antispam firms spotted the skyrocketing amount of image spam this summer."

KnujOn Argument 1: Does not actually reduce the flow of junk mail


"Now employees are stopping us in the halls to ask us if we turned off our spam filter..."
"...the team received 5,000 e-mail messages and the Barracuda spam appliance blocked all but 300. Still, some employees continue to see two or three pieces of spam in their in-boxes each day."

KnujOn Argument 2: Junk mail still gets through


"...the Mariners’ network manager, said he tried to tighten spam controls and inadvertently began blocking the regular incoming press notes from opposing teams."

KnujOn Argument 3: Good mail gets blocked


"...last month a sudden Internet-wide increase in spam clogged his firm’s servers so badly that the delivery of regular e-mail to customers was delayed by hours."

KnujOn Argument 4: Legitimate Marketing and Corporate Communication Treated as Spam


"...researchers at Purdue University and Oxford University this summer found that spam stock cons work. Enough recipients buy the stock that spammers can make a 5 percent to 6 percent return in two days, the study concluded."

KnujOn Argument 5: Filtering does not stop the crimes behind the email


"...the Mariners’ network manager, said he tried to tighten spam controls and inadvertently began blocking the regular incoming press notes from opposing teams."

KnujOn Argument 6: Anti-Spam Companies as Censors


"To relieve the pressure, the company took the drastic step of blocking all messages from several countries in Europe, Latin America and Africa, where much of the spam was originating."

KnujOn Argument 7: Reduces the Value of Email as a Communication Tool


"...spammers are making money..."
"...most active spammers now operate beyond the reach of American law enforcement. Antispam researchers say the current spam hot spots are in Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia."

KnujOn Argument 8: Creates an Underground Network for Scam Artists



Mr. Stone's article is interesting for many reasons but one is glaring, that the overall message seems to be that filtering and blocking has failed yet all the "new" ideas out there are recycled versions of the same old ones. However, it is important to note that the programmers of filtering software have come up with some amazing algorithms and code but they are looking through the wrong end of the microscope. We at KnujOn are not just throwing out casual criticism, we actually have plan to fight the problem.

The concept of filtering is flawed. Filtering leads people to think that they are doing something about the problem, when in reality the problem continues to grow. But, unfortunately an industry has grown up around filtering, thus creating stakeholders.

Hans

Well said

Filtering is the only means whereby non-expert email users/administrators can be sure that they are not parties to further email abuse.

Yes there are other means to battle spammers however witness what happened to Blue Security, i.e. a method that was proving to be a real threat to spammers. Unfortunately given the current Internet architecture, there are severe constraints to what can be done without inadvertent harm to non-spammers. The real solution is a next-generation Internet architecture based on IPv6 but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Right but what what other recourse is there that ensures that innocent parties aren't inadvertently harmed?

Can you define what you mean by "harm"?