Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

[Ian Eiloart <[e-mail]>]

--On 27 February 2010 14:08:37 +0100 Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On 27/Feb/10 07:22, Chris Lewis wrote:
>
>>
>>> I'm aiming for a specification that permits a single <user action> to
>>> communicate upstream for _both_ filtering and reporting purposes,
>>> where whether it's used for filtering or reporting or both in any
>>> given instance is up to the site admin and/or end-user.
>>
>> +1, and I would welcome an efficient IMAP implementation in that sense.
>> However, the spec should also allow to just send complaints.
>
> +1. "upstream communication is the idea". It's up to the (email
> address|device|...) to interpret how to interpret it and what to do with.

This is very sensible, but when you say "single <user action>", are you 
voicing support for the notion that only a single bit of data will be 
transmitted? Or will the vocabulary be richer than that? How about an 
extensible vocabulary?

For example, User Agents also have spam filters. It might be useful for 
such a filter to be able to make reports back to the administrator. Also, 
the user or the user's filter might want to say "this is not junk". Thus we 
have at least four messages that we might want to communicate to the admin. 
And, that's before we allow the user to express views on the type of junk 
that's present (boring versus offensive or potentially criminal).

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