Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Seth <sethb@panix.com> Thu, 17 December 2009 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sethb@panix.com>
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 BB37F3A6811 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.524, BAYES_20=-0.74, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 5TpfGyn5PIqL for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73D03A67A4 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:25:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212B51F08B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 756) id 192832421D; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:25:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth <sethb@panix.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-reply-to: <BBF2AC03-3C88-4557-9346-343347C196A9@guppylake.com> (message from Nathaniel Borenstein on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:33:59 -0500)
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912082138050.20682@simone.lan> <20091216014800.GA29103@gsp.org> <DBF77720-200E-4846-949F-924388F9CC15@blighty.com> <20091216120742.GA28622@gsp.org> <20091216185904.3B9032421D@panix5.panix.com> <4B296458.5070603@mail-abuse.org> <16C1C8A4-D223-435B-93BC-A9D44F5965A1@guppylake.com> <B14EC7430355853625D0D4EA@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <BBF2AC03-3C88-4557-9346-343347C196A9@guppylake.com>
Message-Id: <20091217182526.192832421D@panix5.panix.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:25:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:25:41 -0000

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:

>> Twitter seems to think that users are smart enough to distinguish
>> between "unwanted" and "spam". They give you a button for
>> each. It's an important distinction that most people can make. 
>
> Twitter isn't always right, and my intuition differs from yours on
> this one.  Fortunately it's something that could be resolved
> empirically.  I'd like to see such a study, because it wouldn't take
> very many users who *can't* properly make that distinction to render
> the two-button solution counterproductive.  I'd rather have one bit
> of meaningful data than two bits of muddled data.  -- Nathaniel

One button is the "OR" of the two buttons, so there's no less
information available.  Given enough data, it should be easy to get
pretty accurate statistics on how reliable _each_ user is, and the
unreliable ones can be mapped into the one-button treatment.

Seth