BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTLABS) wrote:
+1
In the real world, there is so much positive experience with spam
reporting. Vipul's Razor (report-based spam filter) evolved into a
commercial filter now used by most major US-based ISPs. Sure there are
problems that need to be dealt with (e.g., unsubscribe, gaming, random
human errors), but rather effective solutions (including but not limited
to those involving reporter reputation, low-pass filters, and a "Not
Spam" button) have been found.
In OMA (SpamRep abuse-reporting standards activity), the accepted wisdom
is that the reporting protocols should be standardized, but that the
backend processing (interpreting the reports) and report destination
shouldn't (parenthetically, mechanisms for specifying destination and
authorizing forwarding may be within the scope of the OMA standards).
I agree with this : reporting protocols, buttons, ... OK !
Yes, What to do with report destination, interpretation, etc... This is an open issue which shall
remain open to research and creativity of people working on the subject. There are a lot of
different things to do with.
Is there not enough of a plurality convinced of
* the benefits of reporting and
* the benefit of interoperability resulting from standardizing reporting
to proceed with standardizing abuse reporting?
I still don't think "abuse reporting" is the good name. It's more general than that. In my context,
it's just user feedback about how a filter in a server handled a message.
Regards,
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg