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

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr> Tue, 09 February 2010 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr>
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 A4FE33A70CD for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:08:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
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 ajn+bmsJ2Ahb for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boipeva.ensmp.fr (cobra.ensmp.fr [194.214.158.101]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A209C3A6F65 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (joe.j-chkmail.org [88.168.143.55]) (authenticated bits=0) by boipeva.ensmp.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Feb/2009) with ESMTP id o19J9ekL012491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:09:40 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <4B71B2E4.2060103@ensmp.fr>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:09:24 +0100
From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc11 SeaMonkey/1.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at boipeva with ID 4B71B2F4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4B71B2F4.000/88.168.143.55/joe.j-chkmail.org/localhost.localdomain/<Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr>
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: Jose-Marcio.Martins@ensmp.fr, 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 19:08:44 -0000

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
> My reading was that the group appeared to converge on using regular 
> posting for submitting a report.
> 
> But perhaps the presence of rough consensus needs to be determined 
> explicitly.
> 
> Would folks please respond to the list with their preference:
> 
> 
>      Reports should be submitted using a mechanisms that:
> 
> 
>      [1]  Is the same as for submitting regular new mail, that is, normal
>           posting.  (Determination of the address to send to is a separate
>           issue.)
> 
> 
>      [2]  Is specific to the mechanism for retrieving the message for 
> which a
>           report is being submitted.  (The details of such mechanisms is a
>           separate issue.)

Well, I haven't had enough time to read and think about all messages... Sorry !

IMHO, [2] allows easier handling of reports but [1] is more general.

But I (and surely others) have another requirement. It could be interesting to use this mechanism in 
an active learning context. That means, user can receive the message flagged as "label required". So 
the feedback should include the information : ham/spam.

Regards,

JM

--