Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Ian Eiloart <> Thu, 25 February 2010 10:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD953A86BE for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:57:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H0oTcPYW3cdM for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:57:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED973A86B1 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:54141) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <>) id KYE98O-00086R-A5 for; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:00:24 +0000
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:59:41 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01ISYaboqHiNNik27QjUyUm43hh547yIRMlpE=;
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] Summary of junk button discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:57:40 -0000

--On 25 February 2010 05:45:46 +0000 John Levine <> wrote:

>>> I find it too restrictive to call this a "junk button" as this mechanism
>>> can be used more widely than just this way.
>> Ah, well that's a different question. This particular discussion is
>> about  how to get reports from the user to the administrator of the
>> system. How  the user triggers the report is an exercise for the MUA
>> programmers, but  we've been thinking that it's likely to be a button
>> labelled "junk".
> Having talked to a fair number of ISPs who provide junk buttons, none of
> them thought that more buttons would help.  Users don't distinguish among
> all the reasons they might not want a message, and asking them to do so
> is more likely to get random answers or no answers than good ones.

Well, maybe that's true. But have you talked to Twitter, or anyone else who 
has actually tried it. I haven't, but Twitter do provide two buttons: one 
to block and one to report. It's not exactly the same, but it's there.

Apart from that, we're not actually creating these buttons, are we? We're 
defining a reporting mechanism. My view is that it's better to have a 
richer vocabulary defined, and allow implementers to chose which parts to 

In fact, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation (well, I 
wouldn't!) if a few more IMAP flags had been provided for these purposes.

> The only think other than a junk button that appears useful is a
> not-junk button to display when looking at stuff in a junk folder.

>  I suppose we could do that, but then we'd have to define what a junk
> folder is.  Or if we do this with a header applied by the MDA, it could
> have a flag hinting which way the junk flag is set now.
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list

Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see