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

"Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> Mon, 08 February 2010 20:22 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 953E528C116 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:22:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, 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 mVvnWknMR7vS for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nwdb.co.uk (arichards02.wiredworkplace.net [213.143.2.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5478628C10B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15520 invoked by uid 0); 8 Feb 2010 20:23:17 -0000
Received: (ofmipd 82.38.187.212); 8 Feb 2010 20:22:55 -0000
Date: 8 Feb 2010 20:23:18 +0000
Message-Id: <201002082023.18887.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
From: "Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
To: "Dave CROCKER" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg@irtf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:22:18 -0000

On Monday 08 February 2010 17:39:27 Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 2/8/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew Richards wrote:
> > What bugs me about [1] is that the whole message is being re-sent, but
> > we seem to have established that the only thing a spam button will be
> > saying is "This is spam/unwanted", so sending a report including the
> > original email for basically a single bit of information seems
> > excessive.
> 
> The alternative requires that a copy of the message still be at the
>  server. That works in only some MUA-based models.  Often/typically, the
>  entire message is downloaded to the MUA's site and the server no longer
>  has a copy.  Hence, it's too late to enjoy merely passing a citation
>  back to the server.

I wish to imply that it would become a requirement for the server to hold a 
copy if it wishes to implement this functionality.
 
> > If the originating MTA(s) can be persuaded to hold onto [a copy of]
> > the original message for at least a few days the reporting MUA merely
> > needs to tell its upstream MTA which message(s) are spam/unwanted by
> > referring to their UIDLs or Message-IDs. In addition there seems to be
> > a greater chance
> 
> The challenge is the "few days".  It means that the mechanism fails
>  after a few days.  Is that acceptable?  Why?

Reports of spam are most useful the fresher they are - thus a report the 
same day or the next day is likely to be useful to prevent similar spams 
(or more of the same spam) whereas less fresh reports (stale?) aren't so 
useful - and therefore it may be sufficient to hold copies of messages for 
just a short time without significantly degrading the utility of reporting 
spam.

cheers,

Andrew.