Academic Information Technologies has decided to pull the plug on the spam e-mail filter that had been used on ISU Webmail accounts for only a matter of weeks.

Thank you.

The filter, while a worthwhile effort, definitely had its flaws. It sounded helpful at first — similar to the Junk Mail folders several e-mail services offer to clients. The difference here was the lack of customization, the pervasiveness of the tags (which could not be deleted from the headers, even if it were a much-wanted message) and the ability of the filter to accurately identify spam messages.

There was an uproar on campus surrounding the spam filter. This outcry caught Academic Information Technologies, the office that brought in the filter, off guard.

“We didn’t expect students to dislike the new system as much as they did,” Dorothy Lewis, director of AIT, told the Daily.

The true purpose of the filter was never to censor spam messages, but to rate the probability that the mail was spam and then flag it accordingly. This meant no messages were lost or blocked, and that users still had to look at the e-mails before deciding whether they would save or delete them.

This also meant, however, that legitimate messages could forever be marred with the “[Spam? ####]” heading. E-mails from family members, professors or friends could receive the inaccurate warning. Even messages sent as reminders from and to the same e-mail address could fall victim to being labeled spam, or replies to a non-spam message could come back newly labeled as spam.

Spam is still the clearer evil here. For its attempt to battle spam, AIT should be applauded. And though the method AIT employed to “filter” the messages was clearly not a campus favorite, its decision to kill the system altogether deserves applause and thanks as well.

Even AIT had to admit the flaws in the system.

“Certain e-mails would get labeled as spam when they weren’t, and certain e-mails wouldn’t get labeled when they should,” Kent Ziebell, system analyst with AIT, told the Daily.

The effort was noble, but the battle tactics were more annoying than they were worthwhile. In killing off the so-called filter, AIT has made a decision that will both quell the complaining and rid e-mail users of the annoyance of the flawed system.

Do not bash AIT for its attempt at targeting spam. The filter is gone, as are its annoying side effects. Rejoice, instead, in our reclaimed ability to identify spam on our own.

Editorial Board:Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Rachel Faber Machacha, Charlie Weaver, Zach Calef, Ayrel Clark.