On Saturday 06 February 2010 18:37:05 Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
Reports should be submitted using a mechanisms that:
[1] Is the same as for submitting regular new mail, that is,
normal posting. (Determination of the address to send to is a separate
issue.)
[2] Is specific to the mechanism for retrieving the message for
which a report is being submitted. (The details of such mechanisms is
a separate issue.)
I prefer [2].
What bugs me about [1] is that the whole message is being re-sent, but we
seem to have established that the only thing a spam button will be saying
is "This is spam/unwanted", so sending a report including the original
email for basically a single bit of information seems excessive.
If the originating MTA(s) can be persuaded to hold onto [a copy of] the
original message for at least a few days the reporting MUA merely needs to
tell its upstream MTA which message(s) are spam/unwanted by referring to
their UIDLs or Message-IDs. In addition there seems to be a greater chance
of inadvertent disclosure of information with [1] whereas with [2] we know
the MTA has already seen the message.
I don't see POP3 as a problem with [2] as suggested elsewhere: It could be
extended to include reporting a UIDL (or Message-ID) as spam/unwanted;
unaltered implementations would simply answer 'unimplemented', which I
don't see as a problem: If people like having a spam button they can
persuade their POP3 provider to implement the server-side part of it or
vote with their feet.
cheers,
Andrew.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg