Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation

Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org> Mon, 26 October 2009 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <claudio@telmon.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 D28C83A68F3 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.629
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245]
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 AtwM3z7RAEIt for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slim-4c.inet.it (slim-4c.inet.it [213.92.5.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C313A681A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 88-149-250-70.dynamic.ngi.it ([::ffff:88.149.250.70]) by slim-4c.inet.it via I-SMTP-5.6.1-561 id ::ffff:88.149.250.70+ofUL7iPyIJa; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:56:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE5807B.3070000@telmon.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:56:59 +0100
From: Claudio Telmon <claudio@telmon.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090817 Lightning/0.8 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <6679e0500910252145j69e51a6frb2cd90c86dff4bb4@mail.gmail.com> <6679e0500910260203u447614e4w8a7afc73eae8d090@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6679e0500910260203u447614e4w8a7afc73eae8d090@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Passive Spam Revocation
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, 26 Oct 2009 10:55:56 -0000

Yao Ziyuan wrote:

> Showing a message's spam status to the sender can be bad, if he is
> really a spammer. So the page can also return:
>     * SPAM STATUS HIDDEN. (A CAPTCHA is also presented below.)
> This means the sender can solve the CAPTCHA to see the status and
> change it to NOT SPAM.

This would solve the problem of spammers testing the filters without
solving the captchas. However, any automated mailing system would be
unable to take advantage of the system. If the goal is just to provide
an additional mean for people to check if their messages have been
delivered, this wouldn't be a problem, but it would require some changes:
- it would be useless to automatically check for the message status
(which would be HIDDEN anyway), unless you expect people to be willing
to solve captchas for every message they send
- message status should be availabe for a long time, since people would
use this opportunity only if they somehow suspect that the message has
not been delivered

-- 

Claudio Telmon
claudio@telmon.org
http://www.telmon.org