Here’s a rant I just have to get off my chest before I think about it. In some situations, it is best to capture the emotions before they are intellectualized. I just received an e-mail from a senior requesting some information and a freebie. So I responded to him with what he wanted and hit reply. Time passed. I got a new mail notice. His provider sent me an automatic notification that my reply to his message had been redirected to a “suspect e-mail” folder. To have my reply moved to the recipient’s inbox, I needed to go to a special site (suspect, in my eyes) and enter data which would allow the recipient to decide if I should be placed on a list of allowed users.

But I was replying! And I was replying to a request!

Now I’m as security conscious and spam-hating as the next guy, but somewhere in the equation we have to keep some common sense. Courtesy and etiquette would be good, too. In the first place, I’m not sure I want to be on a list of allowed senders. What is the security on that list? Where is it kept? Depending on the popularity of the sender, somewhere in cyberspace he is building a list of valid addresses associated with real names. Those addresses and names make the spamming crowd salivate. His protection does nothing good for me. His protection causes me to expose myself in several ways.

First, I am expected to click on a strange site. Anyone ever hear of phishing? Then when I get there, they want some personal information. Okay, a name and e-mail address do not sound like much personal information to give out, but I’ve received a lot of spam that started, “Dear Sherman…”

Finally, I am actually told that a list is being created somewhere. This is not a one-time thing. The longer my personal information sits around in an undisclosed location out of my control, the more likely it is to be compromised. I don’t like that. You shouldn’t either.

Yes, I will submit personal information whenever I feel that the value I’m getting for it is worth the exposure. For instance, most of us probably carry food store cards and swipe them to get discounts on our groceries. Of course the store has your data on file. That’s how you got the card in the first place. By swiping your card, you allow them to correlate you with your purchasing practices. Ever wonder how you happen to get advertisements that seem to appeal to you? Some people object to the stores using personal data, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s a fair deal. I give them something. They give me something. If I don’t want to give them something, I can decline the discounts. As long as everyone knows the score, that’s okay with me. You can always opt out.

That is not the situation with the poor excuse of a system to protect the e-mail subscribers. When I respond to his e-mail, he doesn’t give me a grocery discount. I can put up or not communicate. It’s that simple.

With relatively little effort, the senior’s ISP could have implemented a system to better serve clients by not inconveniencing the clients’ legitimate correspondents. For instance, one reply could be accepted without hassle from a new address as long as it was indeed a reply from an address that had recently been a recipient. The reply could be accompanied with a notice to the original sender. Then the client could be given the opportunity to put the responder on a locally stored list of allowed addresses or not. The onus of deciding what to do should obviously be on the person who benefits, not the outsider. You want to set up a fence to protect yourself, great, but don’t draft me to help build it.

So this is just another chapter in the evolution of the spam and security wars. In physical wars, generals try many ways to protect against enemy attack, and some of those ways turn out to be pretty silly. Similarly we can expect some silly responses to spam attacks.

But ultimately the responsibility of civil behavior and courtesy is the responsibility of the person sending e-mail. When you disrupt a play or concert because you forgot to silence your cell phone, you are guilty of discourtesy, not the phone company and not your caller. It’s your responsibility to prevent your device from inconveniencing others. It’s the same with e-mail.

Even with that backward protection system, my client could have put my name on an allowed list before requesting a reply. That would have been common courtesy and effective.

Teaching seniors these things is just as important as teaching them to click and drag or cut and paste. After all, most of them want to get online to communicate better with other people. So a good part of any coaching, tutoring, or class work should deal with courtesy to facilitate the process.

Now I have to figure out a courteous and effective way of instilling that thought process in my client.

For more in-depth tips on tutoring seniors, see the complete tutorial here. I also have posted a tutorial on elementary decision theory for those who might question a physician’s diagnosis (important for seniors) or anti-terrorist activities (important for everyone) but haven’t had the framework to analyze the data. That tutorial can be found here.