On Monday 08 February 2010 17:39:27 Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
I wish to imply that it would become a requirement for the server to hold a
copy if it wishes to implement this functionality.
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?
Reports of spam are most useful the fresher they are - thus a report the
same day or the next day is likely to be useful to prevent similar spams
(or more of the same spam) whereas less fresh reports (stale?) aren't so
useful - and therefore it may be sufficient to hold copies of messages for
just a short time without significantly degrading the utility of reporting
spam.
cheers,
Andrew.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg