Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Mon, 01 February 2010 16:57 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 B5E1C28C1A1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.459
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 S0u4G42lwCAf for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk (chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA22E28C133 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 08:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:51069) by chip.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KX69SE-00092B-18 for asrg@irtf.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:57:50 +0000
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:57:49 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <3741B85B916D847C703F2724@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20100201145903.30670.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20100201145903.30670.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01pgmaJA9qCInndu6GEi8Zfg2XDIG7fgkvG3Q=; 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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:57:25 -0000

--On 1 February 2010 14:59:03 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> You're right, for the minority of us who run IMAP.  For everyone else
> who uses POP, mailing an ARF report back to the POP server may be the
> best we can do.

So, are we looking at an IMAP/ANNOTATE extension for IMAP users and an 
RFC5451 modification for SMTP users? The IMAP/ANNOTATE is much more 
efficient than sending an abuse report, and less susceptible to outside 
interference.

Does ARF allow richer expression than ANNOTATE?

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