Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)
"Andrew Richards" <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> Mon, 08 February 2010 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
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 713423A7261 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:18:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_UK=1.749, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 p0V2xHvbJpUl for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nwdb.co.uk (arichards02.wiredworkplace.net [213.143.2.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 31FA93A7256 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:18:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 12982 invoked by uid 0); 8 Feb 2010 19:19:05 -0000
Received: (ofmipd 82.38.187.212); 8 Feb 2010 19:18:43 -0000
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:19:06 +0000
Message-Id: <201002081919.06800.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
From: Andrew Richards <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic-pae; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; )
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002081735.39674.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <4B705252.80405@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B705252.80405@nortel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:18:07 -0000
On Monday 08 February 2010 18:05:06 Chris Lewis wrote: > Andrew Richards wrote: > > What bugs me about [1] is that the whole message is being re-sent, but > > we seem to have established that the only thing a spam button will be > > saying is "This is spam/unwanted", so sending a report including the > > original email for basically a single bit of information seems > > excessive. > > In general, it isn't a "single bit of information", especially if you > consider that this mechanism will undoubtably used to feed outsourced > handlers who don't see your inbound mailstream at all. > > Think SpamCop for example. > > I'm not sure why "exessive [volume]" is a particular concern. Okay, let me rephrase that to "not elegant" > For the > most part complaints are relatively rare, and this is only on that > fraction that doesn't already get zapped by the filters. We're > exceptional in the former (getting as much as 10-20% of all spam getting > past the filters being reported as full forwards), but nobody has ever > noticed the flow operationally. An example where this might be noticeable: Bob receives a multi-megabyte email (with attachment etc) and decides to press the TiS button. He's on a modest ADSL or dial-up link, so if he returns the whole message in a report this will temporarily impact on his bandwidth which he may well notice. If instead just a few packets are used to communicate the unwanted UIDL / MessageID he'll not be troubled. I think this is where elegance (= lightweight on bandwidth) helps in this situation. At the same time I grant that this would be introducing an additional burden on MTAs to store messages where they may not be doing so at present. > If you posit 100% "hit the TiS button", 100% spam, and _no_ filtering > whatsoever, your outgoing from the user equals your incoming to the > user. But if you're in a situation like that, one wonders why you have > mail service or users at all. cheers, Andrew.
- [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (w… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dotzero
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bart Schaefer
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Cal… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Paul Russell
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz