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

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

> It needs to be a little more complex than a single flag because you need
> to communicate both not-spam->spam and spam->not-spam, but sure, a simpler
> approach can be used.

If it's a flag, you can set it or clear it like you set or clear other 
message flags.  What more do you need?

> The question is whether there's a need for something in between the client
> generating a MARF report versus changing a flag or annotation.

The general goal here has been to add a spam button to MUAs equivalent to 
the ones that webmail systems have.  I have yet to see persuasive 
arguments in favor of anything more complex.  User generated MARF reports 
are a can of worms, both because they require that MUAs learn how to parse 
Received headers, including knowing which ones are local so they should 
ignore them, and that MUAs or users figure out where to send the reports. 
We already know how to do this on the server side, we have no clue on the 
user side.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.