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 17:43 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 6548F21F85A4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 10:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.065
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.534, 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 09bTDFmaFtZH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A835221F858F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 10:43:07 -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 q4CHh6CY005836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 12 May 2012 10:43:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4FAEA121.1030106@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 10:42:57 -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: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.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> <4FAE840E.5070702@dcrocker.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205121209130.41480@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1205121209130.41480@joyce.lan>
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 10:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: 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 17:43:08 -0000

On 5/12/2012 9:13 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> I suppose this could be two bits, one the spam state to display, the
> other a less visible flag the user can toggle, but that's not what IMAP
> does with its other flags.


1.  What is the purpose of the two flags?

2.  What is the "need" for each of them?

3.  What is the basis for believing the need is substantial?

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email