Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com> Thu, 17 December 2009 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <nsb@guppylake.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 24EA03A6898 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:17:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.371, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 7ZHX6g5GdDjA for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server1.netnutz.com (server1.netnutz.com [72.233.90.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0C23A686D for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c-67-173-1-117.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([67.173.1.117] helo=[192.168.1.4]) by server1.netnutz.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <nsb@guppylake.com>) id 1NL501-0001yD-Ns for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:17:49 -0500
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912082138050.20682@simone.lan> <20091216014800.GA29103@gsp.org> <DBF77720-200E-4846-949F-924388F9CC15@blighty.com> <20091216120742.GA28622@gsp.org> <20091216185904.3B9032421D@panix5.panix.com> <4B296458.5070603@mail-abuse.org> <16C1C8A4-D223-435B-93BC-A9D44F5965A1@guppylake.com> <4B2974A9.1010701@mtcc.com> <4B2983E9.7020807@mail-abuse.org>
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@guppylake.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-34--762388878
In-Reply-To: <4B2983E9.7020807@mail-abuse.org>
Message-Id: <6964D8B0-2477-4685-997B-4B90885C9C15@guppylake.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:17:32 -0500
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.netnutz.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - irtf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - guppylake.com
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 01:17:50 -0000

On Dec 16, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> However, not all feedback would fall into the user category.  Feedback
> obtained from spam-traps that recognize auto-responses and valid DSNs
> offer better metrics when separated from user feedback of lesser quality.

I agree if you mean that each of these kinds of feedback is "better" when properly separated from the other.  I don't know that one is necessarily "better" than the other, but they convey different kinds of information and are therefore more useful when not mixed together.  I suspect that the user feedback will be most useful for high-level heuristic filtering, while automated feedback will permit certain kinds of more absolute filtering.  We need both (and more).