Mail filtering of the IMPACT Conference Report

From: Cliff Kurtzman <moderator_at_o-a.com>
Date: Wed 08 Mar 2006 08:54:46 -0600

With the mailing that we sent out Monday, we got notice from
one company with three subscribers on the list, telling us the
delivery had been blocked for inappropriate content, and
detailing the "grading" criteria used by the software to block
the message. I thought it would be useful to share the message
with the list so folks can get an idea of how (at least this one)
filtering program works:

Content analysis details: (8.3 points, 5.0 required)

  pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL To: repeats address as real name
  0.5 HTML_40_50 BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
  0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN BODY: HTML font color is unknown to us
  0.3 HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06 BODY: HTML has a low ratio of text to image area
  0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE BODY: HTML font color is blue
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
  0.7 HTML_TABLE_THICK_BORD BODY: HTML table has thick border
  0.1 HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE BODY: HTML font color not in safe 6x6x6 palette
  5.5 PO^RN_4 URI: URL uses words/phrases which indicate po^rn
  0.2 TLM_URI_amp0 URI: URI contains something to block
  0.8 BIZ_TLD URI: Contains a URL in the BIZ top-level domain

Note that in two instances, I have added a ^ character to the middle
of the word po^rn so this message won't get blocked... but it is
interesting that an email filtering program, which undoubtedly blocks
emails based on that word, actually uses that word in the messages it
sends out providing notice of the blocking!

So the message got a total of 0.8 points deducted for having a
high HTML content and having a low ratio of text to image area.
Seems fair enough.

A total of 0.3 points were deducted because a font color was used
that was "unknown" to the filtering software, because I used the
"blue" font color, and because I used a font color not in their
color palette... seem silly, but the deduction is minor.

0.7 points were deducted because some of my tables had a two
pixel border... also seems silly.

0.8 points were deducted because I included a link in the message
to my bio at www.kurtzman.biz, and evidently linking to a .biz
domain is a bad thing? Also in the silly zone, but in the future,
I'll link to my bio using the www.cliffkurtzman.com alias, which
I own, strangely enough, thanks to Rob Frankel, who insisted that
I register it.

The big deduction was for 5.5 points. All the other deductions
together would not have been enough to trigger the blocking, but
that single deduction alone was sufficient to cause the message
to not be delivered to those three recipients. The reason for
that deduction was:
URL uses words/phrases which indicate po^rn
I've gone back through the message to look at each of the URLs,
and all I can figure is that the software thinks that "impact" is
a dirty word.

I'm amazed that people would buy software that works this way.


--Cliff

Clifford R. Kurtzman
CEO | Moderator
ADASTRO Incorporated | The Online Advertising Discussion List
http://www.adastro.com | http://www.o-a.com
(281) 480-6300






Received on Wed Mar 08 2006 - 08:54:46 CST