--On 4 February 2010 17:44:21 +0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com>
wrote:
So, let's not ignore POP3 users. After all, their data will be useful
in identifying spammers, and there are a lot of them. But, equally,
let's not try to solve two different problems with the same
solution. And, let's not delay an IMAP solution while examining the
POP3 problem.
Putting on my standards hat, a standard that mandates one process that
everyone can use is much more likely to be useful than one that has a
bunch of options that need separate implementations.
Well "two" implementations; we already have IMAP and POP3 protocols for
accessing mail stores. And, we're talking about how we communicate with the
mail store administrator, right? It seems pretty obvious to me that that's
going to be different for a POP3 user than an IMAP user.
I don't know POP3 well, but would it not be possible to say something like
"the nth message from my last download was spam"?
On the other hand, if you want something that IMAP users can use right
now, move messages to the Spam folder. After all, one of the largest
mail systems in the world (AOL) implements it right now. If you were
about to say no, that's too ugly, you've just confirmed my point.
It's not just ugly, it's exactly the reverse of what spam folders are
usually used for. They're usually used by ESPs to put suspected junk in. An
email's presence in the spam folder means "the server side filter thought
this was spam". And, there's no standard name for that folder. And, nor
should there be.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg