[Let me begin by saying that you cannot make this stuff up!]

Friday: 10 Oct 2008
(http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/10/att-customer-ca.html#posts)

AT&T reserves the right to change its terms of service by sending its Internet service customers an e-mail. Apparently, it also reserves the right to deposit those e-mails into its customers’ junk mail folders.

Last month, AT&T made some controversial changes to its Internet policies. Verbiage indicating that high-bandwidth users might experience some intentional slowdowns irritated some techies; another section that forces customers to use binding arbitration to resolve disputes annoyed consumer organizations; and an L.A. Times reporter bristled at the size of the full new agreement — 2,500 pages.

But Lance Mead, an AT&T Internet customer from Encino, Calif., almost missed the entire controversy. His notification of the new terms of service was sent via e-mail on Sept. 18, but AT&T’s own spam filters trapped the e-mail as spam and deposited it in his junk mail folder, he said. On a whim, he checked the folder and spotted the notice. He was furious.

Someone — anyone — please tell me how this is not proof positive the entire premise behind e-mail spam filtering is seriously flawed? I completely understand that mistakes happen. However, these “mistakes” are also considered “false positives.” In the “e-mail game” it is the false-positives that cost business real money. Is it really the end of the world if 5% to 10% of the e-mail received in your inbox is spam? Probably not. It is unnecessary, annoying, and unproductive to be forced to wade through spam, but missing an important e-mail thanks to the flawed concept of filters, a.k.a. guessing machines, should be considered absolutely unacceptable.

I’m in the business of making e-mail a safe and more productive tool. Part of my job is to consider questions like “Why is FaceBook so great and why do so many people use it?” After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that FaceBook has succeeded in providing more than simply a nice social networking environment. Thanks to FaceBook’s “opt-in by request only” nature, people are able to connect and communicate one-to-one (and in some cases one-to-many) with only those people they have authorized. I know many people who have stopped using traditional free e-mail services like Gmail and Yahoo, and instead use FaceBook to communicate with friends and colleagues. I ask these people why they have abandoned e-mail and in all cases the answer has been the same. “FaceBook is easy to use, is safe from threats, and is spam free.”

I do not know anyone that works for FaceBook. However, if I did, I would certainly compliment them on creating the secure communications channel that e-mail could have been.

This brings me to the explanation of the title of this posting…

In my opinion, e-mail is the original “social networking” tool. To quote George Lucas, “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….” in a pre-FaceBook, pre-LinkedIn world; there was e-mail. Before the “bad guys” and “marketing guys” messed up e-mail, it was a great tool for managing your social network of friends and business associates. Unfortunately for e-mail, there is no built-in concept of “opt-in by request only” functionality. In fact, with e-mail, there is virtually no built-in security whatsoever.

As the original “killer app,” for e-mail to maintain its undisputed role as the most important communications medium since the telephone, it seems clear to me that e-mail needs to be “upgraded” at least to a security level equal to that of other major social networking tools.