Slashdot Mirror


AOL Treats Florida Emergency Alerts Mail As Spam

ScentCone writes "Florida's Indian River County has 4,200 subscribers to their e-mailed emergency alerts, which provide a heads-up on hurricanes, tornados, and other weather events. Subscribers like it, but if they're using AOL mailboxes, those alerts are being treated as spam. All of the subscribers get the mail blast as weather events unfold, and spam pattern detectors are being set off. The county emergency coordinator laments the resulting unreliability of the communication channel, and while few of us at this point think of cross-domain e-mail as reliably mission critical, the AOL-bound portion of a 4200-address blast doesn't seem like much in the spam scheme of things. My experience is that it doesn't take many receivers to mark mail as spam before the domain-wide filters lower some scoring threshold, and the pattern detectors kick in. How many of us run systems that include explicitly voluntary, opt-in e-mail subscription mechanisms which are then reported as spam by the subscribing recipients? This seems increasingly common, and even the whitelisting by smarter recipients doesn't fix it."

14 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Misuse of email? by nizo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...e-mailed emergency alerts, which provide a heads-up on hurricanes, tornados, and other weather events...

    I think this sums up the problem right here; are these people relying on email to keep them updated on potentially life-threatening situations? Don't get me wrong, these messages shouldn't be marked as spam, but depending solely on these email warnings is seriously asking for trouble, considering how many different things can delay these messages or even cause them to disappear completely. Email wasn't designed to be a bulletproof message delivery system.

    1. Re:Misuse of email? by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this sums up the problem right here; are these people relying on email to keep them updated on potentially life-threatening situations?

      The same can be said of radio, television, and even telephone. The point is that it is an additional means of notification. I.e., if you get the information out via enough different types of media, hopefully everyone will get it.

      It's not like they said that the email is now the only way to get the alerts. I presume the National Weather Service still makes the appropriate announcements and the local TV and radio stations also carry the information.

  2. Reliability by fembots · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can email be reliable for critical information? It can be lost easily, email address can be mispelled, the internet connnection can be down, computer that is checking the emails can be down, recipient can be playing games and didn't see the incoming emails.

  3. E-mail for emergencies? by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dunno about you, but I'm going to look to a more universal broadcast media (radio, tv) for emergency info, not, "Hey, the sky's looking kinda dark & ominous, I better go check my email."

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:E-mail for emergencies? by JPelorat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly you've never worked at a facility that didn't allow radios or televisions, or had outside windows easily viewable from all locations.

      Some of us work in functional caves, and only get to see the outside world a few times a day. My office, the server room, is like this. I'm in here pretty much all day. Sometimes the drive-home weather is a surprise..

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    2. Re:E-mail for emergencies? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno about you, but I'm going to look to a more universal broadcast media (radio, tv) for emergency

      Actually, I've very happily used systems like this to get highly localized alerts about other places, where my local broadcasting services would be useless. For example, say you have elderly parents 300 miles away... it's nice, while you're toiling in your cube, to get a little info about impending scary weather in distant Smalltown, and to make a check-up phone call.

      Or, say I'm planning on going pheasant hunting in South Dakota in October. Sure there are a thousand ways I can keep an eye on the weather there in the week or so before I leave the east coast, but when you're busy, it's actually nice to get a couple e-mails a day, mixed in with your other work, that will give you a sense of the evolving weather somewhere out of town. In this case it's not an emergency situation, but I'd be annoyed if that sort of stuff was blocked as spam, that's for sure. Of course, I'm annoyed when I can't unsubscribe, too! And that does happen. That's probably when a lot of people click the "spam" button, and poison the well.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  4. Re:Spam filters are fun... by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can whitelist most of your coworkers. Not by the address, of course, but by the IP used for sending the mail.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  5. Re:Spam filters are fun... by einstienbc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well I actually live in IRC and though we don't use AOL any more, this shall serve as yet another reason a switch to DSL has merit.

    --
    If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.

    --Kurt Vonnegut

  6. The real problem... by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real problem here is not the fact that spam filters aren't 100% perfect and will give false positives occasionally. FWIW, the real problem is not that people subscribe to (opt-in) mailing lists and then mark the messages they get as spam, either.

    The REAL problem is that ISPs and Webmail providers use non-user specific spam filters that allow malicious users to perform what is essentially a denial of service attack. Of course, the users in this particular example who flagged the emails as spam are probably just stupid, not malicious, but I at least could just as well imagine spammers signing up for webmail services, sending each other spam and flagging it as valid email, for example, in an effort to "teach" the spam filter that it's not really spam after all.

    The only real solution would be to move to a per-user filter configuration, but it's not clear to me how practical that would be. You could use a bayesian filter with automatic learning that also gets updated when the user reports false positives/negatives, and initially use another system (like SpamAssassin) until the filter is fully trained; but it's not clear what the computing costs of that really are (not to mention diskspace requirements for the token databases).

    Considering the fact that signing up for these web-based services is usually free, I think that we will see more of this in the future.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  7. Good demonstration by Spudley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a good demonstration of how spammers are messing things up for everyone. A handful of short-sighted and greedy individuals have turned email into a near-useless medium for many legitimate purposes.

    But on the bright side, I hear a lot of the biggest spammers live in Florida? Great. Come the next hurricane season, I hope they all miss something important.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  8. Laziness by jjeffrey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem here is laziness. So many of us, me included, rather than just unsubscribing from opt-in lists, hit the junk button in our mail client. On my mac that's harmless. When an AOL user does it and the client reports home, it causes chaos. And it takes *forver* to get off these lists. I run a mail forwarding service for some local companies, Yahoo decided I was sending SPAM (I wasn't, but SPAM was being sent to the people I was forwarding mail for). I had to fill in the same form describing my "mailing list policy" three times, each time explaining I don't have a list and therefore don't need a policy..... Current anti spam systems are self defeating. We need something better. SPS is NOT it - http://www.spfsucks.com/ - Domain Keys is better, but really I think we need something better than SMTP. My suggested way forward would be that to be accepted by an e-mail system the mail *must* be signed with the identity of the sender, and their public key listed with a CA. Then before your server accepted the mail you could verify the sender, and SPAMmers could have their certs revoked quite quickly. Would probbaly need to be a government organisaiton though - don't want veriswine doing it.

  9. Nothing to see here, move along by gasp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh come on! This is news? An organization is sending out a valid and useful message to a list of subscribers, and some of them have an ISP spam filter that misclassifies it as spam? So we jump on the company providing the filter as if this was intentional or policy?

    Wake up, false positives for spam filters are not news, and it's disingenuous to have a headline that implies "ooh, look what the evil AOL is doing now..." Bah, FUD.

  10. Re:Cure worse than the disease? by TFGeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Aparently b/c they block all comcast email."

    There is a reason for that.

    Of the spam that winds up in my filtered folder, on any given day 50-70 percent comes from a Comcast IP address.

    If enough Comcast customers would either switch and tell Comcast why or complain about them not locking down there servers (most are configured as open proxies), them maybe Comcast would get off their greeedy asses and do something about it.

    Blame Comcast, not AOL.

    --
    Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
  11. Re:I've always wondered... by periol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trying to educate them is hopeless--I know, I've tried.

    No, it's not hopeless. It's hard. Those are not the same things. It takes patience and time to learn something new, and it takes patience and time to teach something. Just because you give up doesn't mean the task is impossible.

    Hopefully, technology will get to the point where most users can both not know the details of the computer, and also not manage to mess things up at the same time. I think we're getting there. Slowly.