Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 02 March 2010 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3D63A67FB for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:52:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.563
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rL8clvqeITQw for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:52:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17AE3A82A8 for <>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 00:52:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=test; t=1267519933; bh=McnBe9b6/VjYPs4CtGMrgWQITjcUb4Hn2cyslSkiHr4=; l=1078; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ae9me8E+rkCqS1Ls1gyeqG4WmhokrUbbxby04sICX771HspzJdNlQPChutGn4XzTY DpyeqokNxMeFOFU+mLag6eCSz3bbMTuib9+/0/agRAk/jmPdaVn9hgHAQ4KolFfFXJ WQ9qkDYNVEsnB2bdhsLgs8ZCmHDWyhQzbXc1//AU=
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by with ESMTPSA; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:52:13 +0100 id 00000000005DC02F.000000004B8CD1BD.00000B44
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:52:12 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:52:19 -0000

On 01/Mar/10 20:25, John Levine wrote:
>> This is very sensible, but when you say "single<user action>", are you voicing support for the notion that only a single bit of data will be transmitted? Or will the vocabulary be richer than that? How about an extensible vocabulary?
> If it sends an ARF report, you can put whatever you want in the ARF, although I wouldn't want to attempt to standardize a lot of stuff that nobody uses.

But what is the relationship between the report and the button? 
Apparently, "single<user action>" excludes automated reports.

> If you want to encode stuff in the ARF report to say whether the opinion is from a human or from software, you can, although it is again not clear how useful that would be.

That field may be useful in sorting out a report's consumers in a 
generalized FBL. Some mailbox providers notify via FBL when users hit 
that button, but not when messages are automatically blocked.

Also, humans make errors in a different way than software, hence any 
correction mechanism should be differently tailored.