Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

John Levine <> Mon, 01 March 2010 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE713A87E1 for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:25:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.043
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0cEiCFmZrZW for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:25:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB5028C53B for <>; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:25:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 42685 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2010 19:25:10 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 1 Mar 2010 19:25:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1003;; bh=CnYyFerFCAXPnJAuKcRrm1PXvqrchAl7Su/xQuiYLek=; b=n8Qebh8/HNfb+p9W6cVQDwwk9SGcSucHEsiYZj1yoWimbdxEEQXZuvHdgQUEgENFCNFeOuJvnUcvztaunN0C8DBqrDLDK518nNNGXmOjSaGrwPYTB4zPTXLmmr5jmsle8SnfDVdV7qQNbEASNPd4gMp9qSCFkBKB11VnM9XXY78=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1003; bh=CnYyFerFCAXPnJAuKcRrm1PXvqrchAl7Su/xQuiYLek=; b=1PgvBOkvA2vnUpx6GeXCjE5/NmJibOKdaJ5+abgRhrZUAZDbHZvy5FdUbN1sAAGD2oADljmkLYeG75KJ+gZgCKbF8dbudA1gEyMf3xljmbG1rP6IE6iOPeMKgx1z/bNjCPDnihjTKT8R/O4BrncIAS4voykafv1hUg3u91u2aVs=
Date: 1 Mar 2010 19:25:08 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:25:50 -0000

>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?

If it sends an ARF report, you can put whatever you want in the ARF,
although I wouldn't want to attempt to standardize a lot of stuff that
nobody uses.  We already made that mistake with ARF, and one of the tasks
of the MARF WG is to strip out the useless crud.

>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).

After years of experience with webmail junk buttons, the only messages
they've found useful are "junk" on regular messages and "not junk" on
stuff in the junk folder.  I don't see why MUA users would be any
different.  If you want to encode stuff in the ARF report to say whether
the opinion is from a human or from software, you can, although it is
again not clear how useful that would be.