Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 12:54 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 D70373A71AE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 04:54:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 kZ9eG3VtXw6k for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 04:54:29 -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 7A0FD3A7386 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 04:54:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:53317) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXKRX7-000IGA-48; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:55:55 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:55:19 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>, Andrew Richards <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Message-ID: <7588420C410AC43D46780B7A@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4B704C4F.80305@bbiw.net>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net> <201002081735.39674.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <4B704C4F.80305@bbiw.net>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:013TMFDkaUc3MeoFlwSVlQqHiBQ6smaEBZUp4=; 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] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
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: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:54:30 -0000
--On 8 February 2010 09:39:27 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote: > > > On 2/8/2010 9:35 AM, Andrew Richards wrote: >> What bugs me about [1] is that the whole message is being re-sent, but we >> seem to have established that the only thing a spam button will be saying >> is "This is spam/unwanted", so sending a report including the original >> email for basically a single bit of information seems excessive. > > The alternative requires that a copy of the message still be at the > server. That works in only some MUA-based models. Often/typically, the > entire message is downloaded to the MUA's site and the server no longer > has a copy. Hence, it's too late to enjoy merely passing a citation back > to the server. Both IMAP and POP are capable of operating in a suitable manner. If the message isn't on the mailstore, then the operator has no way to check that the report really is about a message that they delivered. >> If the originating MTA(s) can be persuaded to hold onto [a copy of] the >> original message for at least a few days the reporting MUA merely needs >> to tell its upstream MTA which message(s) are spam/unwanted by referring >> to their UIDLs or Message-IDs. In addition there seems to be a greater >> chance > > The challenge is the "few days". It means that the mechanism fails after > a few days. Is that acceptable? Why? Actually, that's completely implementation dependant. When a server gets a message "x is junk", it can either act immediately or it can queue an action. For IMAP, it should make a safe working copy, then apply a flag or annotation acknowledging the report. At this point, the user/client knows its safe to delete the message, though they may prefer to keep it for later reference. Alternatively, the flag could be used to change the behaviour of the DELETE or EXPUNGE commands. For example, there's a patch for Cyrus IMAP which implements delayed expunge - messages are removed from the mailbox index, but aren't deleted from the file system until they've had a chance to be backed up (eg, after 24 hours). It's not hard to imagine a similar mechanism that handles messages with junk flags. For POP, you'd probably make a safe copy then delete the original message. If the user wants a copy, they can download it before making the report. In neither case is there a requirement for the message to continue to be visible to the recipient, or use any of their quota. > > d/ -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
- [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Chris Lewis
- [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (w… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Dotzero
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Derek Diget
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bart Schaefer
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3. Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… BOBOTEK, ALEX (ATTCINW)
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Cal… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… John Levine
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Bill Cole
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Daniel Feenberg
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus… Paul Russell
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] overloading server names doesn't work,… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Andrew Richards
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Dave CROCKER
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… John R Levine
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
- Re: [Asrg] DNS basics, was overloading server nam… Douglas Otis
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Ian Eiloart
- Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via postin… Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz