Balancing transparency with security

Complete transparency can backfire. Explaining why spam filters failed by saying "This message passed because it lacked typical spam keywords" teaches spammers exactly what to avoid. Focus on user actions without revealing vulnerabilities.

Better approach: "Mark similar messages as spam to improve filtering." This helps users without creating security risks. The balance differs between security concerns and normal limitations. Users deserve to understand regular constraints. But when explanations could enable abuse, prioritize system protection. Consider each explanation carefully. Does this help good-faith users? Could it help bad actors more? When in doubt, offer general guidance and human support rather than detailed system information.

Make failures boring for those trying to exploit them. Excited error messages or detailed vulnerability explanations incentivize repeated attempts.