IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sat, 12 May 2012 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 278A621F8646 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.553, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bEaX6k9JCnSG for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C47C21F861B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-58-62.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.58.62]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4CFd1Vk004049 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:02 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAE840E.5070702@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 08:38:54 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811ECBB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <20120512025441.33697.qmail@joyce.lan> <01OFDGKHZE5Y0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205120623130.56251@joyce.lan> <01OFE0BDJZ5O0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01OFE0BDJZ5O0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 12 May 2012 08:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-ordogh-spam-reporting-using-imap
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 15:39:03 -0000

On 5/12/2012 8:20 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>     (1) The message was classified as spam and the user has not said
> anything.
>     (2) The message was classified as spam but the user says it isn't.
>     (3) The message was not classified as spam and the user has not said
>         anything.
>     (4) The message was not classified as spam but the user says it is.
>
> You cannot represent all of those in a single bit.


Correct, and I think we should /not/ try to represent all those cases.

Rather, I think we need one bit, which is a "current" classification of 
the message as spam or not.  How that bit gets set should be kept a 
separate matter.  Might be set by the system.  Might be set by the user.

My understanding of research on user-level spam control is that one bit 
is sufficient and more than one bit is confusing, even given the fact 
that user's often invoke the spam button to mean "unsubscribe".

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email