ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Generally workable ways of adding a spam button to MUAs

2010-02-09 10:32:31


--On 9 February 2010 16:56:33 +0100 Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:

On 09/Feb/10 13:08, Ian Eiloart wrote:
--On 8 February 2010 16:44:18 +0100 Alessandro Vesely 
<vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it>
wrote:
Problem A: report spam for complaining (was #3)

Problem B: tune servers' filters (was #2)

I don't think it's useful to try and solve both of them at the same
time.

I'm completely confused by this message. I really don't understand at
all what it is that you're saying. Problem B is about how you handle
reports once you have them. I don't understand what "Problem A: report
spam for complaining" means at all.

Problem B imposes a tight matching between where the original message has
been filter and where the report is going to be handled. In addition, it
needs both spam and ham info. Since the main purpose of server-based (as
opposed to client-based) filtering is to save bandwidth, efficiency is a
relevant concern.

Problem A has a somewhat wider horizon, as it assumes that reported spam
may be routed through some trust-chained operators, possibly reaching the
author of the original message. Although the report may also be used for
tuning or assessing anti-spam filters, its main purpose is to affect the
source of the original message. This is a generalization --and
regularization-- of the FBLs currently used between giant mailbox
providers and ESPs. My expectation is that it will result in important
advances in the collective understanding of spam, so that massive abuse
reporting will not be needed forever. In the latter respect, relatively
inefficient (inelegant) procedures may be acceptable, if they widen the
chances of adoption.

Hope this clarifies my point, sorry for the unintended confusion.

Yes, that's helpful. You've identified a different dimension in which we could divide the large problem (reporting junk mail). That is: the purpose to which the report might be applied.

I think that's the third possible dimension that we've identified:

a) purpose (your distinction), reporting up chain would probably require SMTP reports, but they could be generated in response to the flagging or labelling of messages on mailstores. b) who's in control (the user or the operator), which bears upon whether to use SMTP for reporting. c) the nature of the mailstore (POP or IMAP), which bears upon the space of possible reporting mechansims.


--
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