Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

"Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> Fri, 05 February 2010 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.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 5D6153A6D5D for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, 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 nn6tjypIl3dv for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nwdb.co.uk (arichards02.wiredworkplace.net [213.143.2.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDE693A6AF4 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 04:03:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4353 invoked by uid 0); 5 Feb 2010 12:04:37 -0000
Received: (ofmipd 82.38.187.212); 5 Feb 2010 12:04:15 -0000
Date: 5 Feb 2010 12:04:37 +0000
Message-Id: <201002051204.37682.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
From: "Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
To: "Anti Spam Research Group" <asrg@irtf.org>
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-17-generic-pae; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; )
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912082138050.20682@simone.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912082138050.20682@simone.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:03:52 -0000

I'd like to add a new angle to this thread:

We've been debating how it will work, but it could also be an opportunity 
to consider what to report - in particular by classification. So far we've 
been focused on having a method of saying:

 - This is spam/unwanted

but it may be more useful to expand this to further categories (more than 
one might be specified):

 - This is spam
 - This is unwanted
 - Unsubscribe from mailing list etc.
 - This is a virus
 - This is a phishing mail

Clearly if there's just one button you'd probably have to go for "This is 
spam" or "This is unwanted", but some MUAs might choose to provide a richer 
feature set for how unwanted mail is reported.

These categories clearly overlap with those of ARF - the base values 
abuse/fraud/other/virus cover most of the above and more categories can be 
added / already exist; is there an issue with (as I understand ARF) only 
being able to specify a single category for a message? Does ARF handle a 
generic 'unwanted' adequately with its 'other' category?

Whether ARF or IMAP, POP extensions etc are used to communicate the 
unwanted-ness of the message, the ARF categories clearly look to be useful 
for the reporting and could form part of the IMAP, POP etc. mechanisms if 
that's the route taken.

cheers,

Andrew.