On 25/Feb/10 07:22, Chris Lewis wrote:
On 2/25/2010 12:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
The only think other than a junk button that appears useful is a
not-junk button to display when looking at stuff in a junk folder. I
suppose we could do that, but then we'd have to define what a junk
folder is.
I don't think John meant a "general" definition here... :-/
[...]
With more tweaking, such an implementation would be a bit more
user-friendly, and can stand as a guide as to how you might spec out
what the junk/unjunk button "means", and leave actions to the
implementation.
I cannot help distinguishing between IMAP and POP3 here. For IMAP,
synchronization of Bayesian data among several servers and clients may
be viewed as a generic distributed database problem, possibly
complicated by an amount of fuzziness. It is possible to send an abuse
report as a consequence of particular user's actions; it is just
similar to "move marked junk to junk folder".
For POP3, there are no folders. That's what makes that definition
difficult. Users can look for X-Spam-* headers only after they've
already downloaded the message. In case servers maintain _per-user_
Bayesian data --as they should-- the whole idea of filtering on the
servers seems rather pointless.
To recap, junk buttons can be embedded within a more sophisticated
architecture (as for IMAP). But not the other way around: anti-spam
filter training cannot (in general) be based upon junk buttons and
abuse reporting.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg