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

Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Mon, 08 February 2010 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC26B3A746B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:38:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.578
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oVcaUajU0qZg for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC223A7462 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:38:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o18HdSmN027067 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:39:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4B704C4F.80305@bbiw.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:39:27 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Richards <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net> <201002081735.39674.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002081735.39674.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10365/Mon Feb 8 05:38:51 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Subject: [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 17:38:38 -0000

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?


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking