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

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 B805D28C145 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:43:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 wVcHgYVU4atF for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65923A724B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:54243) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXL5AW-000D3B-RO for asrg@irtf.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:44:57 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:44:20 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <8BB2AFC92420C90CDC46E813@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002091734.18678.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net> <201002081735.39674.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <201002091734.18678.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01s9NROxw0v6D0QKWdH/kmSMSuGUtylRb5KD4=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:43:14 -0000

--On 9 February 2010 17:34:18 +0000 Andrew Richards 
<ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

>
> A further thought: If MUAs use the UIDL / MessageID of the TiS message to
> communicate the message's spam/unwanted status there's not the issue of
> poisoning to worry about, whereas with SMTP/ARF there is the potential
> for  malicious (false) ARF reports to be sent perhaps with the intent of
> degrading ("poisoning") a competitor's email reputation.
>
> I expect this can be addressed in the ARF model (e.g. using some form of
> cookie mechanism) (maybe that's already been covered), but I mention it
> as  a plus point for model [2].

Quite, and nor does the client have to worry about when to delete the 
message. For a POP server, flagging will probably have that effect. For 
IMAP, the "deleted" and "user identified this message as junk" filters are 
orthogonal.

I'd expect both servers to advertise the facility as a capability, so 
there's no guessing as to whether to display the button, and no worries 
about trusting (!) headers in the junk message.

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/