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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 12 May 2012 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 9C15721F8549 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 19:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 VXpbdo3RGmRb for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 May 2012 19:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956A721F8542 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 May 2012 19:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 96825 invoked from network); 12 May 2012 02:55:03 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 12 May 2012 02:55:03 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4fadd107.xn--btvx9d.k1205; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=6iZR3ovt97MeT8rBJwLnz8FGegKDxAWAs7Hpm/GtVZQ=; b=GA04+Ojs51YKKkw1D1DJWWYarGM5zWU9TvLtDWPGV6bDd8FCkuTXHxJCN1wo0WC8/9fyHx5T191nLBNSHO3zBa/SUmctWw/LPfISEwtxAMj5JZ80vxtET+j7hzaTkvO0uGpp/jJ95NRoL//EEDM+8Y6P9UGigcX/JOJ1M3O7thc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:vbr-info; s=4fadd107.xn--btvx9d.k1205; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=6iZR3ovt97MeT8rBJwLnz8FGegKDxAWAs7Hpm/GtVZQ=; b=I4lIR9KtPdVdlNqI1RBns7YCNhSE9WE+M5WnSzOEvR4Gdv6XABav0ukyVP3re4dPofyx1fjWZyH1ZqUoNtlAy7SRwKMoEm52/cdaDPz4U5pZ8mChvKoBmTXl0WelvezxjgXkCqcmfHf95biK9xLW8wv4n24XsyRbGV4sr2M9C+s=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 02:54:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20120512025441.33697.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392811ECBB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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
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 02:55:05 -0000

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.

I also got general expressions of interest from some large providers
that offer both webmail and IMAP.  For them, I assume that they'd do
exactly what they do when a user hits the spam button in the webmail.

R's,
John