Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Tue, 10 January 2012 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
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 DB1A121F8821 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 HBrbBnwvsRNM for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:8200:216:3eff:fe2c:dc8f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC9921F881F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2604:8800:137::21c:b3ff:feb5:20cf] ([IPv6:2604:8800:137:0:21c:b3ff:feb5:20cf]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0AJuufX075943 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:57:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:56:55 -0800
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1201101625540.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.1.10.1201101152580.1913@dh247.orthanc.ca>
References: <20120110014726.81797.qmail@joyce.lan> <6D355995-85F3-4209-AED6-C6BD85D3CC8B@orthanc.ca> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1201101625540.5322@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (OSX 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: The Frobozz Magic Homing Pigeon Company
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 19:57:13 -0000

> Why do you say this is an autonomous service? All the existing
> user-oriented spam feedback systems are are an integrated part of the
> user's email service provider's offering. Users really don't want to have
> to type in yet another hostname and username and password just to provide
> feedback to their provider's spam filters.

I agree it's part of an integrated system, but what I'm trying to get at 
is that it's a standalone component within the whole.  While the service 
presents itself as a part of the MUA, it's not part of the message store 
itself (any more than the MUA's SMTP client functionlity is).

As for configuration, I'm reasonably confident this can be managed with 
SRV records, and would expect many implementations would share the same 
authentication credentials with the message store, so it should be 
possible to roll this out in many cases with no extra configuration 
required by the end user.

--lyndon