On Tuesday 09 February 2010 14:58:47 Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 9 February 2010 13:31:12 +0000 Andrew Richards
<ar-asrg(_at_)acrconsulting(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
(we'd need a helpful volunteer already implementing TiS -
probably in webmail - to generate data on how long it takes 'normal'
users to report TiS from initial message retrieval).
My guess is that won't help. There's not really a "message retrieval"
stage in webmail. The client never downloads anything.
A better way of expressing myself would be "...how long it takes 'normal'
users to report TiS for a message from its first presentation to the user"
which would cover the user deleting messages purely based on the message
preview you mention below.
With IMAP, there's also not really a message retrieval stage. With POP,
there is, but with either, the most efficient thing is to NOT retrieve
spam messages. Often they can be deleted on the basis of a preview of
headers and part of the body.
If you're applying a flag or annotation to the message, you still don't
retrieve it. And, in POP you generally can't act on deleted messages. In
IMAP you generally can't act on expunged messages, so I don't see that
with either protocol there's necessarily a problem that you might be
reporting a message that isn't on the server any more. That only occurs
if you've done a blind retrieval of all your messages in POP.
cheers,
Andrew.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg