Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Wed, 27 January 2010 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 D5E0F3A6A46 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:47:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Ql6fgVDMaQRJ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE63C3A6A3E for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squonk.gsp.org (bltmd-207.114.17.180.dsl.charm.net [207.114.17.180]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o0RClXcu007718 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (avatar.gsp.org [192.168.0.11]) by squonk.gsp.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0RCkU9v029726 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:46:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from avatar.gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9ubuntu1) with ESMTP id o0RClSTU018078 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:28 -0500
Received: (from rsk@localhost) by avatar.gsp.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o0RClRuG018077 for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:27 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:47:27 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <20100127124727.GA17990@gsp.org>
References: <20091216145533.68982.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B2A650D.5020800@nortel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B2A650D.5020800@nortel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:47:24 -0000

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:06:21PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
> I explained that to RSK about a year ago.  Guess he forgot.

No, but I do think you're right *and* I'm right.

You're right about the statistics.

I'm right about end-users: there is no way that any end-user should
ever be permitted to classify anything as spam/not-spam. [1]  They clearly
haven't got the slightest idea how to tell the difference...because
if they DID, the scope of the problem we face would be much smaller.
(It would still be non-zero: it's clear that many spammers don't care
whether users receive, read, save, or respond to spam.)

---Rsk

[1] It might not be unreasonable to permit them the privilege of flagging
something for review by someone equipped with appropriate expertise, although
that has privacy implications that I'm not entirely comfortable with.