Re: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed

Martijn Grooten <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com> Tue, 02 March 2010 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.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 3AD573A8B94 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:10:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_PROFILE2=1.981, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 J5vcUVBrXEdz for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:10:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.sophos.com (mx3.sophos.com [74.202.89.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 050383A8B90 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:10:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.sophos.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 04CE16A179B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:10:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from uk-exch1.green.sophos (uk-exch1.green.sophos [10.100.199.16]) by mx3.sophos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B662D6A17A2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:10:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:e1bd:d3c1:23.222.229.221]) by uk-exch1.green.sophos ([192.168.5.67]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:09:17 +0000
From: Martijn Grooten <martijn.grooten@virusbtn.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:09:16 +0000
Thread-Topic: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed
Thread-Index: Acq6Ct6FZdnC5Az3RXW5Aufnjd7o8AADV2GQ
Message-ID: <18B53BA2A483AD45962AAD1397BE1325379E5192D2@UK-EXCHMBX1.green.sophos>
References: <20100302131810.GA22938@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100302131810.GA22938@gsp.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary/outline of why the junk button idea is pre-failed
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: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:10:16 -0000

> 2. User time
>
>       Let's assume that #1 is completely wrong: let's assume that
>       most/all users are competent spam/non-spam classifying engines.
>       Let's further assume that they're so proficient at it that they
>       can do so in 5 seconds per message.
>
>       Based on both these incredibly over-optimistic assumptions, we can
>       then calculate how much end-user time will be spent performing
>       this classification task and hitting the button.  6.3 million
>       decisions/pushes equates to about a man-year, which means that even
>       a single small spam run (say 300 million attempts, 3% delivery rate,
>       thus 9 million deliveries) can easily chew up well over a man-year
>       of time.  Do the math.
>
>       Part of the reason we try to stop spam/spammers is to prevent
>       them from using up end-user time.  We should not be tasking
>       users with this, as it neatly undercuts part of what we're
>       trying to do.

I don't think your numbers are very realistic (neither the 3% delivery rate for large campaigns, nor the 100% of users that will click the TIS button), but more importantly, how is this supposed to take longer than the alternative for unwanted messages of any kind: clicking the Delete/Trash button? In GMail, for instance, both buttons are right next to each other.

I think the only conclusion one can draw from the above is that reporting a message as spam shouldn't be more difficult that deleting a message. But then, if it were more difficult, most people simply wouldn't use that button.

Martijn.

PS unrelated to the above, but to save myself from thinking whether it's worth sending a reminder at all: CFP for VB2010 (conference on (anti-) malware/spam, 29 Sep-1 Oct, Vancouver) closes this coming Friday. http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2010/call/index

Virus Bulletin Ltd, The Pentagon, Abingdon, OX14 3YP, England.
Company Reg No: 2388295. VAT Reg No: GB 532 5598 33.