Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Alessandro Vesely <> Thu, 25 February 2010 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F14528C3E9 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:02:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.602
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fyjepvue0NDp for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324C428C3E6 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with ESMTPSA; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:04:19 +0100 id 00000000005DC033.000000004B86AD93.000024A0
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:04:19 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:02:12 -0000

On 25/Feb/10 07:22, Chris Lewis wrote:
> On 2/25/2010 12:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> The only think other than a junk button that appears useful is a
>> not-junk button to display when looking at stuff in a junk folder. I
>> suppose we could do that, but then we'd have to define what a junk
>> folder is.

I don't think John meant a "general" definition here... :-/

> [...]
> With more tweaking, such an implementation would be a bit more
> user-friendly, and can stand as a guide as to how you might spec out
> what the junk/unjunk button "means", and leave actions to the
> implementation.

I cannot help distinguishing between IMAP and POP3 here. For IMAP, 
synchronization of Bayesian data among several servers and clients may 
be viewed as a generic distributed database problem, possibly 
complicated by an amount of fuzziness. It is possible to send an abuse 
report as a consequence of particular user's actions; it is just 
similar to "move marked junk to junk folder".

For POP3, there are no folders. That's what makes that definition 
difficult. Users can look for X-Spam-* headers only after they've 
already downloaded the message. In case servers maintain _per-user_ 
Bayesian data --as they should-- the whole idea of filtering on the 
servers seems rather pointless.

To recap, junk buttons can be embedded within a more sophisticated 
architecture (as for IMAP). But not the other way around: anti-spam 
filter training cannot (in general) be based upon junk buttons and 
abuse reporting.