On 2/8/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew Richards wrote:
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.
The alternative requires that a copy of the message still be at the server.
That works in only some MUA-based models. Often/typically, the entire message
is downloaded to the MUA's site and the server no longer has a copy. Hence,
it's too late to enjoy merely passing a citation back to the server.
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
The challenge is the "few days". It means that the mechanism fails after a few
days. Is that acceptable? Why?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg