Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 24 February 2010 11:34 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 B46C53A8466 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:34:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.807, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 yomIXGuFrrA9 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:34:27 -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 9C0A03A828B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:55660) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KYCG9R-000JHR-7R; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:37:03 +0000
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:36:25 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <9B8EB59EC57ED2AD33217BAE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B79BB27.20806@mines-paristech.fr>
References: <20100214005320.52916.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B79BB27.20806@mines-paristech.fr>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01OrRe/aMVzGJ7IbJfptqtKdFwoCx/V53arx8=; 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=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion
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: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:34:28 -0000

--On 15 February 2010 22:22:47 +0100 Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz 
<Jose-Marcio.Martins@mines-paristech.fr> wrote:

>
>
> I don't like the name "Add a junk button", as this mechanism can
> be used to signal a junk message when someone want to complain,
> but it may also be used to do feedback about messages : both
> false positives and false negatives.

Yes, we've already discussed that problem, and several ways to mitigate the 
problem, quite extensively. I've added this text to the wiki: "Also out of 
scope are other ways in which administrators respond to such reports, 
however it's worth noting that any response mechanism should be robust to 
false reports, whether they're malicious or accidental."

> Regards
>
> José-Marcio
>
> -- _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



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