Ah, spam. The annoying cyber-pollution that crams our inboxes has prompted most of us to use filters to keep the unsolicited ads out of our email. But as spammers have gotten more savvy with their wording and spam filters have had to become more restrictive to keep up, ordinary emails are getting caught more and more often by the sweeping net of the junk email box, and ordinary emailers are being placed on blacklists that they might not even realize they’re on.

Consider the case of James McGrath Morris, who publishes an email newsletter called “The Biographer’s Craft.” When some of his readers were not receiving the newsletter, he ran his copy through a spam checker. Use of the phrases “young adult” (as in literature), “getting nasty” (referring to a legal matter) and “hot” (in reference to what’s popular in books) were red flags, so to many spam filters, his content was questionable enough to block it from those at the other end of the email stream. Context was irrelevant.

Or consider Mike Fratto, a writer at InformationWeek.com who reported that one of the site’s visitors was having trouble forwarding spam to the FTC’s spam reporting email address (spam@uce.gov) because the forward was — what else? — blocked by a spam filter. The same email, when forwarded to Mike himself, also ended up in the junk email folder.

It’s reasonable to expect some normal emails to fall into the spam filter through unlucky phrasing, but the problem has begun to increase. When Morris asked a professional about lowering his spam-check score, the answer was simple: he just had to censor himself and change any questionable phrases to different ones. But that, as he notes, creates a slippery slope as spam filters try to keep up with more sophisticated junk email onslaughts. “If I surrender those words now,” he writes, “what might I be asked to give up next month?” He muses about ordinary writers becoming stymied in their craft when spam filters trip them up for using phrases like “beastly behavior,” Lolita” or “swelling ranks of investors.” Those who write and distribute email newsletters are fighting a battle of words against software, with strict self-censorship as a result. Writers have had to begun to write for the filters, not for the audience.

In addition to screening for key words and phrases, some filters also check for “bad reputations” from mail servers and IP addresses. If a given server or IP address has been used by spammers, it could end up on a list that makes content from that server or IP address automatically questionable to spam filters. These lists change constantly, and as Fratto notes, it’s hard to get one’s server or IP address removed from the list. Morris experienced this sort of frustrating filtering when his IP address turned up on a list of questionable sources at www.spamhaus.org. The Spamhaus Project claims to maintain the list free of charge to keep email administrators in the loop on spam sources, but Morris hadn’t sent any spam from his IP address. Later, when he checked his IP address again, it was no longer on the list, or on any other lists he checked.

These sorts of restrictive filtering and quiet blacklisting are an obvious problem with spam filters today. What complicates matters is that the person sending the email might not know that their IP address or server is on a black list (the list keepers don’t notify those who are listed; they just maintain the lists), and those who receive an email that is labeled a spam message may never see it, as it’s usually diverted into a junk mail folder or deleted entirely without notifying the recipient. In my own case, Yahoo! puts my spam into a junk mail folder and tells me when I have new messages there, but it’s up to me to wade through the hundreds of spam emails I receive in a day to make sure that no legitimate email is being sent there in error. If I delete the contents of the spam folder, they’re gone, bypassing the “trash” folder completely and going out into the ether. 

And to add insult to injury, many spam messages still slip by the filters and into my inbox.

What can be done to make spam filters and blacklists more aware of context and intent in email? Not much, unless we’re willing to open up the restrictions and allow more spam to reach our inboxes as a result. The price of protection from unsolicited advertising in our email is that some emails will be filtered that shouldn’t be. So which is more important: access to the information, or protection from the noise? For now, that’s an individual choice. You can help the filters perform at their best by putting desired addresses on your email “approved” list, removing yourself from as many spam lists as possible, and checking your junk mail box periodically to see if any legit messages fall through the cracks.

The vast majority of emails sent today are spam… We just have to do what we can to make sure that the filters we use don’t eventually consider ALL email spam.

Sources for this article: InformationWeek, The Hartford Courant, The Spamhaus Project