Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Thu, 28 January 2010 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
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 3270F3A6862 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:48:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Bmk+KaDUx0hH for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BC13A67C1 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-office-nat-223.mail-abuse.org (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B67A945FF for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:48:25 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4B61DBF8.60006@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:48:24 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100128173112.85215.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B61CC2F.404@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B61CC2F.404@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 28 Jan 2010 18:48:07 -0000

On 1/28/10 9:41 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 01/28/2010 09:31 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> Even worse, users will learn what the button means by the effect (they
>>> think) they obtain by hitting it, which may vary.
>> Web mail has had spam buttons for years, and the users seem to have
>> figured out how to use them.  Can you explain exactly how the issues
>> with a spam button in a MUA would be different?
> The entire thing strikes me as rather elitist: like only Certified 
> Spamologists(tm)
> can determine for you what you don't want to receive.
The issue whether a source issued spam or an email someone did not want 
is significantly different.  This is a greater concern for senders, and 
less so for individual recipients.  When this information is used to 
establish spam reputations used for blocking, then not describing 
auto-responses in Chinese as spam would be important.   In general, it 
would be safer to describe email marked by end users clicking "This 
is..." buttons, as only determining the message as unwanted for 
undetermined reasons, where it being spam is one possibility.  As such, 
describing the end-user button and the information obtain as 
identifying  the email as "junk" rather than as "spam" is likely to be 
more accurate from both the sender's and the law's perspective.

-Doug