Hi,
Ian Eiloart wrote:
But I (and surely others) have another requirement. It could be
interesting to use this mechanism in an active learning context. That
means, user can receive the message flagged as "label required". So the
feedback should include the information : ham/spam.
Yes, the content of the report remains to be discussed. If we were able
to go down the route of labelling the message on the mailstore, I'd like
to see a rich set of messages available for two way information flow,
including the following meanings:
The server filter thinks this message is junk.
The server filter thinks this message is not junk.
The MUA filter thinks this message is junk
The MUA filter thinks this message is not junk
The user has asserted that this message is unwanted
The user has asserted that this message is wanted
The user has asserted that this message is reportable
The filter in the MTA is asking what label the final user assigns to this
message.
I'm talking about some way to let the filter in the MTA ask a question to the final user. And the
report submission could be used to send this information back to the filter in the MTA. This is
active learning.
This and your meanings were subject of discussion in a dead subgroup of ASRG (filtering, if I
remember its name).
The content of the report can have some free text space which can be used to add all this additional
information.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr
Ecole des Mines de Paris
60, bd Saint Michel 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06
mailto:Jose-Marcio(_dot_)Martins(_at_)mines-paristech(_dot_)fr
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg