Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 25 February 2010 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 9598A3A8626 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.825
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.825 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 AX+PDqN9FNPG for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73AB63A7F6A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 97655 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2010 05:45:47 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2010 05:45:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=lh6o7igrQqobtdr1ahUtmF+wAByd2rDofLHZkujhKWA=; b=BYwi5hSl8Sfr1Jo+RTyaVpfQwgiGG5hZiPg44ly/7FtT1qN1zYZlZtlQiThzFKOFaAag43TCQIU51pDBtb2RWjK+/queNiIs9U8J7CrvLnBsrrCi/wJBf8SeG8S6+ZTK5udH6fXJQn5MrDNwIlIYsxRYHS0R5DsLQO9LOwxgzWc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=lh6o7igrQqobtdr1ahUtmF+wAByd2rDofLHZkujhKWA=; b=VZNFml07Q50/tK/16PQEzjLW31+f50yWdZrA5JMzlqwA9UkaQ1OSmpvsGWFkETZbqFQp4er90owuS1UdW+IB6nwmC0cB9BY7WIMjezpwzP0HqgM7tqPJjzyKW7Ui/2IM0aT1NVakX19ydFNilXN4AHxYRVDn9D1D9/2DqkUBXkI=
Date: 25 Feb 2010 05:45:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20100225054546.16850.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <F2DDD7EAE7FF60648960003D@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion
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, 25 Feb 2010 05:43:41 -0000

>> I find it too restrictive to call this a "junk button" as this mechanism
>> can be used more widely than just this way.
>
>Ah, well that's a different question. This particular discussion is about 
>how to get reports from the user to the administrator of the system. How 
>the user triggers the report is an exercise for the MUA programmers, but 
>we've been thinking that it's likely to be a button labelled "junk".

Having talked to a fair number of ISPs who provide junk buttons, none of
them thought that more buttons would help.  Users don't distinguish among
all the reasons they might not want a message, and asking them to do so
is more likely to get random answers or no answers than good ones.

The only think other than a junk button that appears useful is a
not-junk button to display when looking at stuff in a junk folder.  I
suppose we could do that, but then we'd have to define what a junk
folder is.  Or if we do this with a header applied by the MDA, it could
have a flag hinting which way the junk flag is set now.

R's,
John