Re: [apps-discuss] Spam reporting over IMAP

Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Tue, 10 January 2012 00:15 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 6DC6D11E80B1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:15:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 M78cz-LsIeIg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:15:36 -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 EC5BD11E8080 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from peregrin.orthanc.ca ([96.54.172.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0A0FIhR088796; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:15:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_781FAB94-7E93-410A-8220-2EE01B13FC61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157C6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:15:13 -0800
Message-Id: <EFB26F43-6558-400E-8EC5-4C85A8214B64@orthanc.ca>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157A4@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <F0F3F170FC88900571B5E5E9@PST.JCK.COM> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C157C6@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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 00:15:36 -0000

On 2012-01-09, at 15:48 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> I think at this point perhaps a higher-level question is in order: Are we (either IETF in general, or APPSAWG specifically) interested in or willing to put time into developing this in conjunction with OMA? Would this be something ultimately beneficial to have, and have it come from us?

I'm sure many people would like to see something like SREP, but IMAP is absolutely the wrong place to put it.  IMAP servers store messages.  An IMAP server doesn't decide whether something is spam, and is in no way capable of doing anything about it.

SPAM filtering happens further up the delivery chain, usually within the MDA, or a preceding MTA, typically one that borders the recipient's site.  For an SREP-like system to have value, it needs to be able to provide feedback to the appropriate location in the delivery chain.  A generic reporting protocol might be a way of doing this, but it needs to be agnostic of the message stores and transport agents if it's to be useful.

So while I applaud the concept, the proposed solution isn't even close to baked.

--lyndon