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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> The idea is fine.  When we discussed this before, once we got past the
> wheel reinvention phase, there seemed to be general agreement that
> this particular draft is much too complex.

> I'd think that all we really need is a way for an IMAP client to set
> or unset a flag or status bit on a message saying that the user
> considers it to be spam, and the usual IMAP stuff to tell clients that
> the flag is available.  Once the flag is set, the advice would be to
> do whatever they do when they get a spam report from a user.  Maybe
> they move it to another folder, maybe they send an ARF report, but I
> don't think that needs to be (or even should be) normative.

It needs to be a little more complex than a single flag because you need
to communicate both not-spam->spam and spam->not-spam, but sure, a simpler
approach can be used.

But it's not as flexible as a general reporting mechanism. For example,
I could easily see using this to report things like signature validation
failures.

The question is whether there's a need for something in between the client
generating a MARF report versus changing a flag or annotation.

				Ned