Ircd spam filter
xref at blackened.com
Sun Jun 6 20:35:15 EDT 2004
ISPs and email providers parse users private emails to filter spam (even
if only to apply a probabilistic spam rating), and users reap the benefits.
Google's new Gmail service parses users private emails to provide
targeted ad content.
Governments and law enforcement agencies parse users private emails,
phone calls, faxes, AND irc messages to prevent crime/terrorism under
Whether you agree or disagree with spam filtering, advertising, and/or
the patriot act, bringing your own politics into the codebase is never a
good idea. Some organizations running irc servers/networks may wish to
filter private messages they consider to be spam. Others may wish to
provide ad content. Yet others may wish to provide an interface for law
enforcement to gain visibility into private messages -- especially if
they come in with a warrant, and are intent on doing so anyway.
Parsing private messages to profile or collect aggregate data may be
considered useful, and less of an invasion of privacy.
Finally, any expectations of privacy lie with the claims made by the
organization(s) running the irc server/network, not with the protocol's
use of the string PRIVMSG. Channel chatter uses PRIVMSGs -- there's
certainly no expectation of privacy on a public irc channel (aren't
search engines beginning to index them?)
Jack L. wrote:
> I don't agree with writing a private message filter for an ircd. The ircd is a server, not a filter. Spying into people's private messages is not what an ircd is written for and personally, I would not want my private messages filtered in any way shape or form. Private messages are exactly what they are, private. Filtering everyone's messages just because some spam bot decides to ruin everything is not a good reason. That is like filtering everyone's private emails to find that spammer. It is unfortunate that people use irc to spam, but filtering private messages is not the way to go.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Philippe <feel at feeleas.org>
> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 15:32:02 +0200
> To: General IRCD-Hybrid Discussion <hybrid at lists.ircd-hybrid.org>
> Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter
>>Bill Bierman wrote:
>>>>From: hybrid-bounces at lists.ircd-hybrid.org [mailto:hybrid-
>>>>bounces at lists.ircd-hybrid.org] On Behalf Of Harald Paulsen
>>>>Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 5:32 PM
>>>>To: General IRCD-Hybrid Discussion
>>>>Subject: Re: Ircd spam filter
>>>>Allthough I agree that it could be beneficial to have a feature like
>>>>that sometimes, it is a dangerous line to cross.
>>>>1) It can and will be abused
>>>>2) Server operators risk loosing their common carrier-status.
>>>>On the other hand, if one could load a module that specifically filters
>>>>ONE special message, #2 might be avoided. It's risky though.
>>>>We have no business reading peoples messages, even if to protect them.
>>>Another good point. Users would have to ASK for such a service to be
>>>provided to them. The conclusion you draw from that is if you're going to
>>>require their consent, why not leave it up to them and their client to
>>>filter that stuff out?
>> Sorry, but don't invoke privacy for this, Fyle spambot, agobot,
>>fishers, etc, are more dangerous for user's privacy than this filter.
>> If an admin wants to spy private messages, he just need to lauch
>>ethereal or such program.
>> > Another good point. Users would have to ASK for such a service to be
>> Of course, all users asking me every day to proctect them, and I'm
>>tired to play with additionnal services, perl script or eggdrops : bots
>>are still there.
>> But, perhaps you got a better solution (I'm not kidding you). ?
More information about the hybrid