Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Thu, 17 December 2009 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.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 C503E3A69BC for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:24:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.931, BAYES_40=-0.185, 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 VRWnO74eLRLg for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86963A69BD for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:54795) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KUT1MG-000EG0-5T for asrg@irtf.org; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:25:28 +0000
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:24:18 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <1860A957448C14F9FF0901DB@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1487131244.2631260992085419.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
References: <1487131244.2631260992085419.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01U7WexrwWDCuUIvIov9vGKhE5uS2/ILbbyCA=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
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, 17 Dec 2009 16:24:45 -0000

--On 17 December 2009 07:34:49 +1200 Franck Martin <franck@avonsys.com> 
wrote:

>
> PS: there is no convention either on the location of the sent folder,
> draft folder, contact, calendar, etc... Which obliges the user serious
> fine tuning when using different clients. This capability could indicate
> basic folders to the client for automatic set-up.
>

There isn't even a convention that you should have different mailboxes for 
any purpose. Gmail broke that, when they decided that tags (mathematically 
"sets") were more useful than mailboxes (mathematically "categories"). 
Mailboxes are logically equivalent to restricting emails to carrying a 
single tag.

As I said earlier in the thread, registration of some new IMAP flags is 
probably a better way to do this. The NAME of a mailbox is language 
dependent, so it should not be standardised. The NAME of a flag need not be 
presented to a user, so it can be standardised. It would also allow richer 
semantics, and on a per-message basis.

Of course, the presentation to the user could be as if the messages were 
all filed in a separate mailbox.

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/