Re: [Asrg] Computer Security Communication Network

Adam Sobieski <> Mon, 17 December 2012 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6701121F853C for <>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:33:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mD1tR2fEebMe for <>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB20621F852D for <>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:33:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SNT002-W61 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:33:31 -0800
X-EIP: [JA9viG0TCzQ+OlROL8u9VJZ52IE3malI]
X-Originating-Email: []
Message-ID: <SNT002-W614D5EEFB9CC5A6D0F0F93C5320@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_54052239-d04e-420a-89e1-10412fe15b3c_"
From: Adam Sobieski <>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:33:31 +0000
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20121217050334.67526.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <SNT002-W3728935959EC88B4A4B612C5320@phx.gbl>, <20121217050334.67526.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2012 14:33:31.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C9A6A60:01CDDC63]
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Computer Security Communication Network
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 17 Dec 2012 14:33:32 -0000

Internet Research Task Force,
Anti-Spam Research Group,
John Levine,

Some techniques for annotating message or system objects include tallying booleans, annotations from a list, or typed hyperlinks from users.  In peer-to-peer systems, during search processes, tallied annotations on objects can adorn search result items.  Some social networking websites utilize thumbs up or likes.  In Digg-based or Reddit-based systems, tallied annotations are utilized in sorting search results.

Extending on those premises, towards the aforementioned more complex voting systems, or more complex annotational systems, a specific example includes that, beyond a button per message or system object, for indicating whether a message or system object is spam or not, or beyond a button pair, we can envision a forms-based process with an initial user interface item of a drop-down menu of spam or other annotational categories.  Such a drop-down menu could suffice for either annotations from a list or typed hyperlinks.

Beyond that user interface, however, each category from that drop-down menu could have its own form to complete, where, in each such form, users could indicate one or more text or hypertext selections.  At the end of each such form, there could be a navigational option to either return to the aforementioned drop-down menu to add another such annotative object or to complete the forms-based user interaction.

In the indicated example, the selections of text or hypertext, along with categorized annotations, resemble granular and machine-utilizable evidence and observations and users would then have more to either agree or disagree with one another about than with tallied booleans, tallied annotations from a list, or tallied typed hyperlinks.

Kind regards,

Adam Sobieski