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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

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.


> 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?


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net