ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

2010-03-02 04:50:29


--On 1 March 2010 19:25:08 +0000 John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:


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.

To me, as an administrator, I'd give more weight to a human opinion. In part, that's because the human is less likely to actually see a message that the client filter had spotted. It's the hard to spot email that I want to inspect.

I still want to know why Twitter's experience - which distinguishes between "block" and "report" isn't useful in this context. They seem like clear distinctions to me, and they're verbs, not adjectives, so they make explicit the resultant action. For privacy reasons, I think it's important that people are aware that a report is being made.

Now I think of it, "junk" is a verb, too, so its use in a button could easily be misinterpreted as equivalent to "trash" - less strong than either "block" or "report".

--
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>