IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 02 March 2010 15:44 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 3B81C3A8B62 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 hfgTOniFsxTg for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:44:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (mail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0ED33A8B4A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:44:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1267544653; bh=4df0ce87krvlAbFnj2wLauXZU/5EzzrQC0J9czHMxYY=; l=1102; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=AaPmf7UlT/20giW47UvrDYN3xawF8AjPXc1f2joOOVmeT1V/BEosP/r1CVme5wzzh e4FUfxPVo2dnWcC3G8F8DV/KEBD1Iz89Zh9KEws1TtcT5GE2PCTCRbV91LDm3rBGDW ZZw0XG+P5dhxJxVRScsgcI1kn1W2xs3iKfN/zLZE=
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; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:44:13 +0100 id 00000000005DC044.000000004B8D324D.00002A43
Message-ID: <4B8D324C.5070803@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:44:12 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100302131810.GA22938@gsp.org> <4B8D181E.1010504@mines-paristech.fr> <20100302145550.GA14585@gsp.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100302145550.GA14585@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 15:44:16 -0000

On 02/Mar/10 15:55, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> The primary beneficiaries of a standardized, widely-deployed mechanism
> for a report-as-spam-button are spammers/abusers: they will own it
> the moment they choose and will do whatever they want with it -- which is
> unlikely to be good for us *whether we're using such a mechanism or not*.

Would that assertion still hold, in your opinion, if 
"report-as-spam-button" is replaced by "abuse-reporting-address"?

> I *strongly* recommend your attention to the discussion several years
> ago on spam-l of the consequences of Verizon's choice to use outbound
> SAV, wherein we all (well, maybe not "all", but those who were paying
> attention) got a painful object lesson in how spammers will quickly
> notice, study and employ ill-considered methodologies to their advantage.
> There are some instructive points about that experience that directly
> apply here -- and which should give considerable pause to anyone familar
> with them.

What is the similarity between SAV or similar "callback" mechanisms 
and reporting something as spam?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email