[ih] Update on filtered list posts

[Joseph Touch]

> On Sep 15, 2020, at 12:50 PM, Grant Taylor via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 9/15/20 1:40 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote:
>> All anti-spam is inherently censorship, so yes, this is censorship, to be clear.
> 
> Not all {anit-spam,censorship} is {created,motivated,applied} equally.
> 
> There is a big difference in an objective {anti-spam,censorship,filter} such as "the posting email address must be from a valid domain name which can be verified as having an email server via DNS lookup" and subjective {anti-spam,censorship,filter} "haterid for the color blue (as in blue screen of death has annoyed us that much)".

The ISOC, for whatever reasons it deems appropriate, uses what is typically a profanity filter that has also been updated to address particular threats, notably the one I mentioned.

>> And yes, some types of censorship hide what they filter on - specifically to prevent ‘gaming’ that mechanism.
> 
> I understand not wanting to advertise what's filtered.  But I do think that when asked, the powers that be should privately admit what happened to the effected parties.

They did. Again, we’re riding for free here. So yeah, we can ask. But we aren’t really in the position to demand or revolt on this.

> I also feel like the same mentality behind security of the key material vs security of the algorithm applies here.

In a sense, the filter rules are both the key and the algorithm. There’s no way to expose them without saying “here’s how to get around them”.

> 
>> The ISOC is censoring what they consider spam.
> 
> Is there a process to ask the ISOC if they are still seeing a spate of spam (being rejected) by the filter(s) / key word(s) in question?  Or if they would be willing to try removing it and re-addressing it if it becomes a problem again?

I’ve already asked them to consider the collateral damage and consider adjusting their filter on this term. Again, until then, just avoid that word or re-spell as indicated.

Joe