Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Sun, 20 December 2009 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.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 24D1F3A6954 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:14:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.370, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 zbh68XbyUxE5 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93163A67B2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ianeiloart.plus.com ([212.159.124.126]:335 helo=[192.168.1.13]) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KUYA28-000GI3-8T for asrg@irtf.org; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:15:44 +0000
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:14:18 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <43B331C2D7C191593BA50365@paine.local>
In-Reply-To: <266313159.161261081085132.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
References: <266313159.161261081085132.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
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: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:14:37 -0000

--On 18 December 2009 08:18:09 +1200 Franck Martin <franck@avonsys.com> 
wrote:

> Ian,
>
> My feeling is that this is a feature badly needed now for IMAP. How to
> implement it? Seems your solution reasonable.

I think that what's required is registration of new IMAP flags, and an RFC 
to define their meanings.

>
> I'm just dealing with a case of different clients storing sent messages
> in different "Sent" folders. People use different clients because
> sometimes they use a web interface and sometimes some piece of software.
>
>
> Franck Martin
> http://www.avonsys.com/
> http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys
> twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Eiloart" <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
> To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg@irtf.org>
> Sent: Friday, 18 December, 2009 5:24:18 AM GMT +12:00 New Zealand
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
>
>
>
> --On 17 December 2009 07:34:49 +1200 Franck Martin <franck@avonsys.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> PS: there is no convention either on the location of the sent folder,
>> draft folder, contact, calendar, etc... Which obliges the user serious
>> fine tuning when using different clients. This capability could indicate
>> basic folders to the client for automatic set-up.
>>
>
> There isn't even a convention that you should have different mailboxes
> for  any purpose. Gmail broke that, when they decided that tags
> (mathematically  "sets") were more useful than mailboxes (mathematically
> "categories").  Mailboxes are logically equivalent to restricting emails
> to carrying a  single tag.
>
> As I said earlier in the thread, registration of some new IMAP flags is
> probably a better way to do this. The NAME of a mailbox is language
> dependent, so it should not be standardised. The NAME of a flag need not
> be  presented to a user, so it can be standardised. It would also allow
> richer  semantics, and on a per-message basis.
>
> Of course, the presentation to the user could be as if the messages were
> all filed in a separate mailbox.



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/