Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Seth <sethb@panix.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 05:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sethb@panix.com>
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 B775D3A6801 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:39:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 HNr4k3ZwkcuH for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066D33A67F1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AAE38E44 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:39:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id 10F9124218; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:39:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <C92A29E1-3659-4EB9-888B-F0667381D5AE@blighty.com> (message from Steve Atkins on Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:37:39 -0800)
References: <20091209202807.81190.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20091209235730.7958324216@panix5.panix.com> <A1AF1DFB-40D4-4E7D-AA3C-3F865CBF14C6@blighty.com> <20091210023913.F322224218@panix5.panix.com> <D70BFF28-6C34-4F1F-AF7F-3D18F6A05EA2@blighty.com> <C92A29E1-3659-4EB9-888B-F0667381D5AE@blighty.com>
Message-Id: <20091210053916.10F9124218@panix5.panix.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:39:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:39:27 -0000

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> wrote:

> If the mail delivery path is "spammer -> forwarder -> isp ->
> recipient" then the only useful places to report it are the ISP, the
> forwarder and (potentially) the spammer. If, instead, it's
> "spammer-pretending-to-be-a-forwarder -> isp -> recipient" then the
> only useful place to send it is the ISP, but sending it to the
> spammer as well has no real cost.

Problem: if the ISP gets the report and doesn't know that the
forwarder is legitimate, it will damage the reputation of the
forwarder.

> I might have missed a suggestion to not send it to the ISP, only to
> the apparent forwarder, when there was something that looked like a
> forwarder - if so, don't do that. :)

Not "looked like" but "was verified by the user, by the server sending
a magic message to the user-supplied 'this is my other address' and
seeing it come back from the forwarder".

Seth