IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sat, 12 May 2012 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 867D021F8603 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, 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 uyihasY0qAEO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2005721F85F0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OFE7MMYA74001N3L@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OF7HODY84G0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 12 May 2012 11:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OFE7MLH9360006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 11:54:01 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 12 May 2012 10:42:57 -0700" <4FAEA121.1030106@dcrocker.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
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> <4FAEA121.1030106@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, 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
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 18:55:38 -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?

There are various ways to define the two flags, but you need at least two in
order to store both system and user determination information.

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

To be able to both present the correct information to the user as well as being
able to get feedback about it.

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

The fact that large numbers of present UIs work this way.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email