--On 9 February 2010 17:34:18 +0000 Andrew Richards
<ar-asrg(_at_)acrconsulting(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
A further thought: If MUAs use the UIDL / MessageID of the TiS message to
communicate the message's spam/unwanted status there's not the issue of
poisoning to worry about, whereas with SMTP/ARF there is the potential
for malicious (false) ARF reports to be sent perhaps with the intent of
degrading ("poisoning") a competitor's email reputation.
I expect this can be addressed in the ARF model (e.g. using some form of
cookie mechanism) (maybe that's already been covered), but I mention it
as a plus point for model [2].
Quite, and nor does the client have to worry about when to delete the
message. For a POP server, flagging will probably have that effect. For
IMAP, the "deleted" and "user identified this message as junk" filters are
orthogonal.
I'd expect both servers to advertise the facility as a capability, so
there's no guessing as to whether to display the button, and no worries
about trusting (!) headers in the junk message.
--
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