--On 8 February 2010 09:39:27 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
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.
Both IMAP and POP are capable of operating in a suitable manner. If the
message isn't on the mailstore, then the operator has no way to check that
the report really is about a message that they delivered.
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?
Actually, that's completely implementation dependant. When a server gets a
message "x is junk", it can either act immediately or it can queue an
action.
For IMAP, it should make a safe working copy, then apply a flag or
annotation acknowledging the report. At this point, the user/client knows
its safe to delete the message, though they may prefer to keep it for later
reference. Alternatively, the flag could be used to change the behaviour of
the DELETE or EXPUNGE commands. For example, there's a patch for Cyrus IMAP
which implements delayed expunge - messages are removed from the mailbox
index, but aren't deleted from the file system until they've had a chance
to be backed up (eg, after 24 hours). It's not hard to imagine a similar
mechanism that handles messages with junk flags.
For POP, you'd probably make a safe copy then delete the original message.
If the user wants a copy, they can download it before making the report.
In neither case is there a requirement for the message to continue to be
visible to the recipient, or use any of their quota.
d/
--
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