This is very sensible, but when you say "single <user action>", are you
voicing support for the notion that only a single bit of data will be
transmitted? Or will the vocabulary be richer than that? How about an
extensible vocabulary?
If it sends an ARF report, you can put whatever you want in the ARF,
although I wouldn't want to attempt to standardize a lot of stuff that
nobody uses. We already made that mistake with ARF, and one of the tasks
of the MARF WG is to strip out the useless crud.
For example, User Agents also have spam filters. It might be useful for
such a filter to be able to make reports back to the administrator. Also,
the user or the user's filter might want to say "this is not junk". Thus we
have at least four messages that we might want to communicate to the admin.
And, that's before we allow the user to express views on the type of junk
that's present (boring versus offensive or potentially criminal).
After years of experience with webmail junk buttons, the only messages
they've found useful are "junk" on regular messages and "not junk" on
stuff in the junk folder. I don't see why MUA users would be any
different. If you want to encode stuff in the ARF report to say whether
the opinion is from a human or from software, you can, although it is
again not clear how useful that would be.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg