ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: scenarios (was: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of messages])

2003-10-10 01:23:12
Thanks for the info. I've had a quick skim through your taxonomy
 and there's some good ideas in there.

My main criterion for the classification was to classify things
into different categories only if a machine could reasonably
recognise the difference between them.

Whilst I agree with you that there is a difference between,
for example, targetted non-bulk commerical mail and private
e-mail, I am sceptical that a machine could tell the difference
(in general).

They might be able recognise whether the same address had
previously sent e-mail to the reciever, to verify a digital
signature or perhaps use some statistical method to estimate the
probability of that message being spam. However, given a
targetted message from some previously-unseen address it is very
difficult for a machine to classify the message as one or the
other.

I don't mean this as a criticism of your taxonomy, because it
looks to me to be very thorough and comprehensive. I just think
that there's a slightly different focus in what I'm doing, which
is looking at how e-mail is used from a machine's perspective.
Since the machine has no idea whether a message is targetted or
not, that part of the taxonomy does not translate into
machine-based scenarios.

However, thanks for the feedback and I'm sure that some of your
ideas would be useful in developing machine-oriented scenarios.

Further comments welcome...

Andrew

Quoting Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net>:

I have posted that message yesterday.
IMHO it aims in the same direction.

      \Maex


----- Forwarded message from Markus Stumpf
<maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net> -----

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:51:17 +0200
Return-Path: <asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Delivered-To: maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)space(_dot_)net
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
From: Markus Stumpf <maex-lists-spam-ietf-asrg(_at_)Space(_dot_)Net>
Subject: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of messages

IMHO it would be useful if we could create some sort of classification
of emails. Within this classification it would be possible to define
policies. These could be used for something like a combination of e.g.
P3P (http://www.w3.org/P3P/) and uce/ube/address policies companies
stick too. So a webpage that allows to enter a email address could say:
   "We strictly stick to classification 3.2.2"

To provide some meat for a dicussion here are my thoughts:

1. private email
   1. a message from a person I know (or not)
      the content is non commercial and has private character
2. targetted non-bulk email
   1. to private
      1. commercial
       1. solicited (e.g. your contract ends, here's a offer for a new one)
       2. unsolicited
          who are you and where did you get my address from.
          "a good friend of you gave us your address because he thinks
           this might be also useful for you"
      2. non-commercial
   2. to company
      1. solicited
       1. customer contact
       2. solicitation of an offer
      2. unsolicited
       1. commercial
       2. charitable (our school needs PCs, you have a computer
          store, maybe you have some elder PCs you can donate)
       3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins)
3. bulk email
   1. discussion lists
      1. opt-in
      2. double opt-in
   2. announcement lists (newsletters)
      1. opt-in
      2. double opt-in
      3. opt-out (working information provided in message)
      4. probably opt-out (no information provided in message, contact
sender)
      5. bounce handling
      6. neither 1.-5.
       1. existing sender contact
       2. faked sender contact
   3. one time mailings
      1. info from a business partner
      2. info targetted to business but no business partner (considered
useful)
       e.g.: companies that sell various goods get email from a new
       company whether they are interested to sell their new product
      3. info not targetted to business from out of the wild
       1. commercial
       2. charitable (please support WHO activity for hungry children)
       3. non-commercial (can you send me a giveaway, I collect pins)
4. automated messages/answers *1
   1. administrative (DSN)
      1. failure notices
      2. delay warnings
      3. confirm receipt
         1. requested (X-Confirm-Receipt)
         2. unrequested (e.g. help desk systems that ACK receipt of
incident)
      3. confirm reading
   2. autoresponders
      1. out of office / vacation
      2. address change
      3. challenges (C/R systems)
   3. virus notifications
      1. for viri that don't fake senders
      2. for viri that fake senders
   4. email robots
      - document retrieval
      - mailingslist management ((un-)subscribe, moderate)
      - ftp-mailers

*1  see also
   
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-auto-email-response-04.txt


      \Maex

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89)
32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89)
32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is
reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"





_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: scenarios (was: [Asrg] 4.a Taxonomy - Classification of messages]), Andrew Akehurst <=