Re: [Asrg] Generally workable ways of adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Mon, 08 February 2010 12:21 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 AF7733A71B9 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:21:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, 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 5nu-pL+awue7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FCC3A6A8A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 04:21:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:50385) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXIVPI-000GMG-NH for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:22:30 +0000
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:22:30 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <A57020F253FEFC9A8ED39F50@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20100205152046.87683.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20100205152046.87683.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01VPQObr1VfNOVYWLQwBrHaYHhumwvyLcayV8=; 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] Generally workable ways of 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, 08 Feb 2010 12:21:38 -0000

--On 5 February 2010 15:20:46 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>>> Actually, we've seen a reasonable suggestion a few messages back that
>>> would work equally well with POP and IMAP: extract a reporting address
>>> from the message and send it an ARF report.
>>
>> Which is certainly not at all simpler than setting an IMAP flag on a
>> message. And (if it's what the user desires) moving it out of the INBOX.
>
> Can I ask people to stop making the newbie mistake of assuming that
> all mail systems are, or should be, just like the mail system they
> happen to use?

I'm not making that assumption. I'm simply claiming that the problem isn't 
a single problem (1. "how to report junk messages"). It's two problems: "2. 
how to report junk messages to an IMAP mailstore operator" and "3. how to 
report junk messages to a POP mailstore operator".

I think that there's a simple, efficient, and elegant solution for 2 
(IMAP), that isn't available for 3 (POP).

It may be that a simple, efficient, and elegant solution is available for 
POP. After all, the DELE command uses a message-id argument, so it's 
possible to flag specific messages as deleted, and therefore would not be 
beyond the bounds of possibility to extend POP to permit flagging of junk 
messages.

In both cases, it would not be necessary to download more than the message 
headers in order to file a report. With ARF, you have to download the full 
body if you hope to forward the report.

By solving both the problems with a one-size-fits-all proposal, we're 
looking at a solution that strike me as pretty rubbish for both (especially 
on a narrow-bandwidth connection).

>
> I think IMAP is swell, I've used it for years, I've encouraged my
> users to switch to it, but many of them won't.  They're not just being
> stubborn--they prefer to have their archive of mail in a place that
> they control, or they're connected intermittently and it's faster to
> download and delete with POP than do the equivalent in IMAP.  The
> tradeoffs in running a mail system for the students and staff at a
> university, or for the employees of an equipment manufacturer, are not
> the same as the ones at a consumer ISP or other kind of organization.
> The world is not going to switch to 100% IMAP and it is just wasting
> our time to pretend that it is.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



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