Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Spam

Email Plugs Into Social Networking 78

Posted by CmdrTaco from the faster-inbox-happier-rob dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Research recently released SNARF, the Social Network and Relationship Finder. It works in the Outlook email client to prioritize and sort emails based on the relationship to the sender and other characteristics of incoming email messages. Trusted Reviews wonders if 2006 is the year of ordering information and reports on ClearContext, which does similar prioritization of emails as well as some email driven task management."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Email Plugs Into Social Networking More

Email Plugs Into Social Networking

Comments Filter:

  • Google, Gmail, and orkut (Score:3, Interesting)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @10:54AM (#14384631) Homepage
    This was Google's plan with Gmail and Orkut. However, Orkut never seems to have really gotten off the ground in the way they'd hoped. [google.com]
    • Well considering you need to know someone using Orkut in order to sign up for orkut...how do they expect anyone to use it if they don't allow people to sign up?

      orkut is unique, because it's an organically growing network of trusted friends. That way we won't grow too large, too quickly and everyone will have at least one person to vouch for them.

      "If you know someone who is a member of orkut, that person can invite you to join as well. If you don't know an orkut member, wait a bit and most likely you soon wi
    • Thanks to Gmail, Orkut and Dodgeball (their recently acquired mobile phone-based social networking service) being under one roof, Google not only has the ability to know who you know, they also have the ability to know where you are and who you're with.

      I don't want Google (or Microsoft or Yahoo or anyone else) to know that much about me. For this reason, I deleted my Dodgeball account immediately after the acquisition (and in general I've asked people [parahuman.org] not to email me using Gmail).
    • Orkut [ecyrd.com] just failed to peak and come, no matter how hard they tried... sometimes one just isn't in the mood. To make sure yours doesn't fail, don't drink too much and make sure she doesn't have a headache.
  • Anyone? Snarf snarf.

  • lol no its not a virus (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hasn't Microsoft screwed up email enough already?

    • Hasn't Microsoft screwed up email enough already?

      Not enough, apparently.

      I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see the development of something like this being subsidized by spam vendors - the next gen Outlook malware wil happily report that it has gone out of its way to find you other people who N33D $ B1GG3R PEN15, just like you, and enrolled you in 4 different "anti-virus products" that it has taken the liberty to "opt you into".

      Of course, it will also note that at one time you read Lord of the

    • This must be the product they were researching when I kept getting those emails about "send this to everyone in your contact list and Bill Gates will buy you a car". Never got the car, and I must have forwarded it like a million times!
    • What do you mean? They haven't screwed up email. They bought Hotmail more than 5 years ago and haven't changed it a bit. ;)
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • E-mail needing new features? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @10:56AM (#14384648) Homepage Journal
    (Insert emo Thundercat joke here)

    My text based communications have moved more to SMS and IM than e-mail, especially in the last 6 months or so. I've even seen many of my non-geek friends and family moving to SMS and IM over e-mail, there is definitely a much high signal-to-noise ratio over the spam cluttered e-mail Inboxes that many people have.

    I moved from my own server (which we ran for almost 9 years) to gmail recently, and couldn't be happier -- I wouldn't doubt that my tiny company is saving thousands per year of maintenance and upgrades, and having our own domain name isn't a big deal anymore. It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.

    The downside to e-mail is still the signal-to-noise ratio. Spam filters are helping, but lately gmail has been losing the battle (but hey, my gmail address is publicly listed on slashdot and other forums, so I can't complain). I also have to wade through what is important right now and what isn't, and marking people with a star hasn't helped much.

    I don't know if I trust Microsoft to design and build the necessary algorithms and heuristics to sort e-mails in an effective way. This is the same company that has one of the worst letter writing analyzers in word, and we all remember Clippy, who probably still exists. Sure, Microsoft has an intense amount of data they can sort from Hotmail and MSN accounts, but I'm not sure if it will be enough. E-mails, in my opinion, are incredibly unfriendly for PCs to analyze -- it's like the game Go. Humans can wade through e-mails in microseconds, but AI programs have never shown me to be intelligent enough to get mistakes to number close to zero. Microsoft's other problem is I wonder how many people still use Outlook for the desktop? Most of my Exchange customers -- nearly all of them -- use Outlook Web Access. I doubt you can install a SNARF MSI somewhere in the chain to support OWA, right?

    Google might have a step up against Microsoft (especially now with AOL and gmail), but even their server AI isn't ready for primetime.

    From what I can tell, though, the person who makes the best e-mail sorting AI will definitely come out on top and they could also save e-mail as the prime communication method. I prefer SMS and IM for the instantaneous communication, high signal-to-noise ratio and ability to truly limit who contacts me. Maybe the solution is some odd combo of IM, SMS and e-mail?
    • Just how long will it be though before we are all getting spammed over IM at the rate we do over email at this point. As of now I get the random fake chic IM every couple of days. But if it bacame an issue like my hotmail inbox where every 5 seconds my GAIM client is ringing with Viagra ads I would most likely smash my computer on the floor.
    • >My text based communications have moved more to SMS and IM than e-mail, especially in the last
      >6 months or so. I've even seen many of my non-geek friends and family moving to SMS and IM over
      >e-mail, there is definitely a much high signal-to-noise ratio over the spam cluttered e-mail
      >Inboxes that many people have.

      I'm not sure little 160 character SMS messages which cost me 10p each to people who have mobile phones are in quite the same league as an email which can contain just about anything (or
      • 10p? Ouch. What is the reason behind that charge? In the States, I have unlimited SMS (in and out) for around US$5 or so a month.
        • > What is the reason behind that charge?

          Contrary to popular belief (in the US), the UK is not socialist.

          It used to be possible to use web sites/ICQ to send text messages ("texts") for free, but that was costing the networks money so they charge each other 10p (well, something anyway) which they'll cancel out between themselves but which left free websites out of the equation. I get 50 free texts a month and you can buy packs at a discount but I'm not aware of any networks that give unlimited free texts
          • I never said it was socialist :)

            That's crazy to hear. I don't see how SMS costs the network any money at all -- I was under the impression that SMS messages were transmitted when the network wasn't in use. Do SMS messages take priority over phone calls? Somehow I doubt this.

            Maybe the networks have a concern that SMS replaces actual phone calls. I'll have to do some more research!
            • > I never said it was socialist :)

              I never said your beliefs were popular! :)

              > I don't see how SMS costs the network any money at all
              > Maybe the networks have a concern that SMS replaces actual phone calls. I'll have to do some
              > more research!

              It's just something they can make money from, that's all. If they were free there'd possibly be so many that even if voice calls weren't affected it'd slow down the delivery of texts - christmas and new years eve texting always slows things down quite a lot
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Careful with the "$5 unlimited SMS" claims. Frequently, they are only cell 2 cell in the SAME network, or you pay something stupid like 25 cents each. Email to cell is an example of an out of network message.

          Many plans have a limit to their plans of something like 200 messages.

          Furthermore, even $5 is a LOT considering that 300 messages a months is high, and that's about 50K worth of data, MAX. Over a buck a K? That's insane.

          With "In" phone calls being free, "In" SMS for $5 seems stupid to sign up for. Obvio
    • I moved from my own server (which we ran for almost 9 years) to gmail recently, and couldn't be happier -- I wouldn't doubt that my tiny company is saving thousands per year of maintenance and upgrades, and having our own domain name isn't a big deal anymore. It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.

      You might want to rethink that policy. What happens when a client or supplier has JaneEmployee@gmail.com in their address book and keeps send

    • Re:E-mail needing new features? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drix ( 4602 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @01:05PM (#14385575) Homepage
      I moved from my own server (which we ran for almost 9 years) to gmail recently, and couldn't be happier -- I wouldn't doubt that my tiny company is saving thousands per year of maintenance and upgrades, and having our own domain name isn't a big deal anymore. It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.

      The domain name thing is big for a lot of people. My prediction for 2006 is that Gmail will start hosting vanity domains, i.e. allowing you specify gmail as your primary MX and letting you send and receive mail from your own domain instead of gmail.com. Seems like a simple moneymaker that a lot of people would pay for.
    • From the Google Terms of Service:


      "Google also reserves the right to modify, suspend or discontinue the Service with or without notice at any time and without any liability to you."

      "The Service is made available to you for your personal use only."

      "Google reserves the right to refuse service to anyone at any time without notice for any reason."

      "Google may at any time and for any reason terminate the Services, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate your account. In the event of termination, your acc
    • Little trick that's probably already too late for you, use the fact that gmail allows you to add an arbritrary +text after your username and before the @ and that you can filter based on that to help control the spam.

      i.e. Use adam.dada+slashdot@gmail.com here and setup a filter to send anything to that address to be autolabeled and to skip the inbox. If someone finds your address and starts spaming, just change your +text and set the old address to auto delete.
    • Just to calibrate, how much spam to you consider too much?

      My personal email account gets about 20 genuine emails a day and 1 spam. Would this be acceptable? My email address has been advertised on usenet and webpages since 1998. I use spamassassin with bayesian filtering.
    • It's worth noting that SNARF doesn't actually analyze the content of messages, AFAIK. Rather, its sorting is based on metrics such as who you reply to most often, who replies to you, whose messages you read, etc. Purely metadata-based, which is a lot easier for a computer to do. Whether or not this is the right approach is another question.
  • Apparently this is going to be big this year.
    I wonder how long before MS tries to by linkedin [linkedin.com]

  • First ambient findability, now this. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What if you don't want to be found?

  • define: Snarf (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @10:57AM (#14384658)
    Definitions of Snarf on the Web:
    1. To grab a large document or file for the purpose of using it with or without the author's permission.
    2. pilfer: make off with belongings of others

    Oh the Microsoft irony.
    • This other definition listed in the Urban Dictionary is the one I have heard:

      6. snarf
      noun; Any person, male or female, that sniffs
      bicycle seats.

      7. snarf link send redefine 6 up, 12 down
      American slang of the 1920's and 30's referring to someone who draws pleasure from sniffing the seats of girls' bicycles.

    • I've always known the term Snarf to refer to the act of involuntarily blowing liquids out of your nose by laughing whilst drinking a beverage.

      As in: It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee while reading about Microsoft's naming conventions...I'd have snarfed it all over my keyboard.

  • Why do we need fancy new smoke and mirrors? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @11:05AM (#14384711)
    You can already do all of these things. It's called "sort."

    Prioritize based on the "relationship of the sender?" Without a doubt, crap like this 100% of the time works against you, because it keeps choking on anomalies and changing things. There's no need to automate something that will eventually cost more time than it saves, other than the "ooh, shiny newstuff!!" factor.
    • It's called "sort."

      Well, perhaps it's called filter and sort, but point taken.

      For instance GF, BF, PU and MLs each have their own folder. I'm not sure what all else I'm supposed to do with these other than sort and find. My "Social Network" is pretty well dealt with by this strategy.

      Software like this assumes the computer is wiser about you than you are, and if that's true you've go more things to worry about than sorting your mail. As a friend of mine likes to state:

      "Life is hard. It's harder if you're stu
    • Agreed. Most of my email communication is with co-workers rather than friends and family. Even if this feature worked correctly, which seems dubious, wouldn't it want to sort my email by my actual priorities (friends and family first) rather than the priorities I pretend to have during the day (boss, job, etc)?
  • Ummm, isn't snarfing when you blow large quantities of liquid out your nose?

  • Great.... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Cryacin ( 657549 )
    Now big brother's not just watching you, they'll be sorting your E-Mail.
  • the first 4 lines of the summary sounds like usenet, only more private and closed.

  • Didn't they learn anything from spam? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Peregr1n ( 904456 ) <ian.a.ferguson@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @11:27AM (#14384847) Homepage
    Frankly, as no system I know of has 100% efficiency in sorting spam from real messages, I don't trust it one inch in prioritising my messages either.

    I wonder what criteria it uses to sort email - if it's simply looking at the email address, then it's going to take up the user's time in setting up relationships and sort criteria, something which I can guarantee most people can't be bothered to do.

    I can hardly find the time to sort email into folders, which is why I'm quite fond of gmail - as it doesn't have folders, I don't feel guilty about not using them...
  • How long before Microsoft is awarded a patent for this? Anyone wanna bet? My guess is 14 months.

  • I'd rather Snarf-It than Snarf! (Score:4, Informative)

    by webword ( 82711 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @11:31AM (#14384877) Homepage
    Snarf-It [snarf-it.org] -- "Snarf-It.org is a state of the art torrent indexer born out of the ashes of the legendary Suprnova, built by the old nova members for their huge community. It has access to the largest torrent, nzb and nfo database in the world where you can find torrents for dvd's, games, movies, software, anime and television all within our easy to navigate site."

    Of course the other Snarf [xach.com] is fine too: "snarf is a command line resource grabber. It can transfer files through the http, gopher, finger, and ftp protocols without user interaction"

  • Business landmine (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lheal ( 86013 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {9991laehl}> on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @11:39AM (#14384947) Journal
    It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.


    If the mail is on gmail, it's theirs, not yours. When they leave, all that information goes with them. If the departure is ... untidy, that could mean anything from simple spam to having competitors know your trade secrets. If the departure has legal implications, you lose valuable leverage.


    Granted, a savvy employee can archive his email and keep it at home, or even plop an automatic dup in their .forward file, but most people don't do that. With gmail (or any free mail), they don't have to.



  • All the more reason to continue using Lotus Notes =)
  • Trusted Reviews wonders...

    I'm coming to distrust anything with "Trusted" in it's name. It may be a backlash from the very concept of TCP and TCM.

  • Seriously I get maybe a 100+emails a day and that's after our gateway does its corporate job of despamming us. What's left is still 85% junk. How hard is it to simply dump all that unopened even if the volume is 2 or 3 times what I get. What's left is 15-20 useful emails a day, maybe. I'm sure I can keep in my head what those 15-20 emails are related to and if I can't I'll just reflag them as unread and get back to them later. Everything else gets read, tossed in a folder where it will most likely never get
  • I gave it a try a month or so ago, but there was one major flaw that made it nearly useless to me -- it doesn't allow you to display by subject line, rather than by sender. The majority of email that I receive is from people I don't know, and showing me that I have a message from John Smith rather than the subject line is damn near useless. I don't remember them by the names, I remember them by the topics.
  • At least they can surely use this to filter out some of the Micros0ft warez spam??
  • First of all, it isn't even an Outlook plugin, it runs as a separate app that starts when Windows does [just what Windows needs another of].

    Secondly, it is completely empty of useful features, has almost no real ability to customize based on user preferences, and the interface is bad even by Microsoft's standards [for lack of a better term.]

    If this is Microsoft's idea of innovation, I can see why they usually just find it easier to buy other people's technologies and then "extend" them.
  • This is a totally shameless self-promotion, but ...

    I recently completed the first half of a book that features a program that does exactly this: plugs into your software and calcuates trust networks, then takes it one step further and applies firewall filters based on those networks. Basically, a P2P version of PeerGuardian, but smarter and more plugin-friendly. The author is Xochitl Green, a web programmer who quickly discovers that she's out of her league because there are people out there that don't ne

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close