Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))

"Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CD63A6BF8 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:07:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4Vj0e6stAz8 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nwdb.co.uk (arichards02.wiredworkplace.net [213.143.2.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C07363A67D8 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:07:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 29751 invoked by uid 0); 9 Feb 2010 15:08:29 -0000
Received: (ofmipd 82.38.187.212); 9 Feb 2010 15:08:07 -0000
Date: 9 Feb 2010 15:08:29 +0000
Message-Id: <201002091508.30014.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
From: "Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg@irtf.org>
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic-pae; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; )
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002091331.13013.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <7C5B0CA93C5231334EF483EE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <7C5B0CA93C5231334EF483EE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] =?iso-8859-1?q?who_has_the_message_=28was_Re=3A_Consensus_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?Call_-_submission=09via_posting_=28was_Re=3A_Iteration_=23?= =?iso-8859-1?q?3=29=29?=
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:07:27 -0000

On Tuesday 09 February 2010 14:58:47 Ian Eiloart wrote:
> --On 9 February 2010 13:31:12 +0000 Andrew Richards
> 
> <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
> > (we'd need a helpful volunteer already implementing TiS -
> > probably in webmail - to generate data on how long it takes 'normal'
> > users  to report TiS from initial message retrieval).
> 
> My guess is that won't help. There's not really a "message retrieval"
>  stage in webmail. The client never downloads anything.

A better way of expressing myself would be "...how long it takes 'normal' 
users to report TiS for a message from its first presentation to the user" 
which would cover the user deleting messages purely based on the message 
preview you mention below.
 
> With IMAP, there's also not really a message retrieval stage. With POP,
> there is, but with either, the most efficient thing is to NOT retrieve
>  spam messages. Often they can be deleted on the basis of a preview of
>  headers and part of the body.
> 
> If you're applying a flag or annotation to the message, you still don't
> retrieve it. And, in POP you generally can't act on deleted messages. In
> IMAP you generally can't act on expunged messages, so I don't see that
>  with either protocol there's necessarily a problem that you might be
>  reporting a message that isn't on the server any more. That only occurs
>  if you've done a blind retrieval of all your messages in POP.

cheers,

Andrew.