Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Daniel Feenberg <> Fri, 05 February 2010 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C333A6DA7 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:15:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.442
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-G30cz343vB for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108453A6F09 for <>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 07:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o15FGg8X053509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT); Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:16:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o15FFQjC000261; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:15:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 1079@localhost) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id o15FFPc4000258; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:15:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: Unknown UID 1079 owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 10:15:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Feenberg <>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.39/RELEASE, bases: 20100205 #3428449, check: 20100205 clean
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
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: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:15:56 -0000

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, John Levine wrote:

>> I haven't been following this thread very closely, but why not just
>> establish a standard role account on the MUAs designated POP or IMAP
>> server? Such as It effectively "preconfigures" the
>> MUA since "arf" is standard and "" is already known to the MUA.
>> The less configuration the better, I think.
> Sorry, wouldn't work.  The name of the POP or IMAP server need not
> bear any relationship to any email address.  For example, on my
> system, the server is named (yes, even for POP, it
> deters the clueless) but there are not addresses at all.

I don't understand why this is relevant. If the MTA operator doesn't want 
to support this feature, he doesn't have to. But if he does wish to 
support the feature he needs to supply an MX record or accept mail on the 
POP or IMAP server. Is that such a great burden? Compared to the other 
suggestions here?

I you are going to ask both MUA and MTA software to both be modified 
before the protocol will work, then that is an insuperable obstacle that 
will surely prevent any implementation from occurring. Only MS can act 
with such total disregard for implementation incentives.

Daniel Feenberg

> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list