Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 28 January 2010 05:42 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 71CD13A68A7 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:42:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.836
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 fCmrFc3qm3F0 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D093A682B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:42:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:42:31 +0100 id 00000000005DC02F.000000004B6123C7.0000038A
Message-ID: <4B6123C7.7000807@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 06:42:31 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20091216145533.68982.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B2A650D.5020800@nortel.com> <20100127124727.GA17990@gsp.org> <38C1E43E-D62A-4E18-BBB1-9E71D2980910@blighty.com> <4B60FA6D.5040007@mail-abuse.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B60FA6D.5040007@mail-abuse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:42:17 -0000

On 28/Jan/10 03:46, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 2) Not all unwanted email falls into a definition of spam.
> Unfortunately, when provided a limited set of options, pressing a "This
> is Spam" button likely communicates a message as unwanted or is
> considered junk, even when from a mailing-list previously opted in, or
> perhaps an auto-response in language the end-user is unable to read.
> After all, not all recipients share a common native language.

Even worse, users will learn what the button means by the effect (they 
think) they obtain by hitting it, which may vary.

I'd consider bringing up a confirmation dialog when disambiguation is 
needed.

> End-users can be a poor judge as to what is spam. Abuse desks receiving
> complaints of unwanted email need to ascertain whether there is evidence
> of spam, such as content clearly in the commercial interest of the
> sender, and not the recipient, etc.

One key point is to establish which complaints require human 
inspection and why. This can be done better deploying collaborative 
interchange with trusted senders.