Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Mon, 01 February 2010 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 617A528C1B5 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:56:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 NDhlYe-LZXcP for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk (chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE1C28C11A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 02:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:62953) by chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KX5T3M-000A9S-5T for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:57:22 +0000
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:57:22 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <DCF5EE6B7BEBF99354DFB80D@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B632CC9.6070809@tana.it>
References: <20100127172200.36250.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <BD52C76861B321AEE74E703A@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4B632CC9.6070809@tana.it>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01v5hdzCj5yzEABbEuK74yDdA/JRB+JiK+NAM=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:56:57 -0000

--On 29 January 2010 19:45:29 +0100 Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> 
wrote:

>
> IMHO it is more important to focus on _how_ and _where_, the answers
> being, respectively, ARF and abuse@<authserv-id>, where the latter is
> defined in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5451#section-2.3 Note that users
> have to configure their clients specifying which authserv-id they trust
> for each account. This stone can kill both birds.

Except that that isn't, I presume, the way these buttons currently work - 
except when somebody is subscribed to a feedback loop. It seems 
over-complicated and inefficient (even with BURL) to send an ARF to your 
own system admin, and rather more simple to just set a flag or annotation 
on the IMAP server.

Apart from that, a standard way of telling the server side spam filter that 
it's made a mistake would be useful.

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