[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt

2012-01-12 13:32:11

At 22:30 -0800 on 01/11/2012, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote about Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt:

 > -----Original Message-----
 From: Robert A. Rosenberg [mailto:hal9001(_at_)panix(_dot_)com]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:20 PM
 To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
 Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org; Dave CROCKER
 Subject: Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kucherawy-received-state-00.txt
 That depends on the meaning of the SPAM state. If it means checking if
 the message IS spam that is different from it meaning that the message
 has been identified AS spam. You are treating as the latter when the
 intent might be the former (ie: The check might introduce a delay in
 processing the message so you are marking it to show the reason for the

I don't know what it means for a message to be in a "spam" state.

A message in a "hold for moderation" state means it's stuck in a queue until a moderator does something with it.

A message in a "quarantine" state means it's quarantined, inaccessible, until an operator brings it out or destroys it.

A message in a "timed" state means it's held in a queue until a certain release time arrives.

All of these are states that cause processing delays, but ultimately from which the message will be released.

If a "spam" state were to exist, what are the conditions under which it would be released for processing and delivery?


I was thinking of checking the message to see if it were possible spam. You might have some cases where your processing can not do an immediate SPAM/HAM determination but have some delay in making that decision. Thus the spam state while the message is delayed while the extended check is being done.

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