Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <> Wed, 24 February 2010 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F48428C120 for <>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:52:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.093
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DYlGBl2PGG6q for <>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864FD3A8481 for <>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:52:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/JMMC-11/Feb/2009) with ESMTP id o1OBsvqS024534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:54:57 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:54:34 +0100
From: Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090908 Fedora/1.1.18-1.fc11 pango-text SeaMonkey/1.1.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Eiloart <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at boipeva with ID 4B851391.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4B851391.000/<>
Cc: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:52:56 -0000

Ian Eiloart wrote:

>> I don't like the name "Add a junk button", as this mechanism can
>> be used to signal a junk message when someone want to complain,
>> but it may also be used to do feedback about messages : both
>> false positives and false negatives.
> Yes, we've already discussed that problem, and several ways to mitigate 
> the problem, quite extensively. I've added this text to the wiki: "Also 
> out of scope are other ways in which administrators respond to such 
> reports, however it's worth noting that any response mechanism should be 
> robust to false reports, whether they're malicious or accidental."

This mechanism being described and discussed may be used more largely. Let me give an example.

You and me, we both work in an university. So, some thing useful in environnements like the ours is 
a way to have users sending feedback to us (us = mail admins) : both false negatives AND false 
positives. These feedbacks may be useful both to tune our filters, to feed statistical learning filters.

The underlying mechanism may be the same as the "junk button", although I agree with you that there 
are weaknesses related to false reports, and noise. But this is a trust problem which may probably 
be handled in a higher level, or adding some more precise information.

I find it too restrictive to call this a "junk button" as this mechanism can be used more widely 
than just this way.