Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Thu, 17 December 2009 01:06 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 819693A6AE6 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:06:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.767
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.767 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.233, BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_ADULT2=1.42, 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 NyHcultsJ0JB for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harry.mail-abuse.org (harry.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA373A6ABE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-office-nat-214.mail-abuse.org (gateway1.sjc.mail-abuse.org [168.61.5.81]) by harry.mail-abuse.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97219A9443B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:05:45 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4B2983E9.7020807@mail-abuse.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:05:45 -0800
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <4B2974A9.1010701@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, 17 Dec 2009 01:06:02 -0000

On 12/16/09 4:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I've thought much the same thing for years. To throw something else
> out, I think that this is tied up with what I call "the alerting
> problem". That is, we are fed many different streams of information
> these days (email, im, voice, news...) each of which has their own
> filtering and prioritization -- if you're lucky. By alerting, I mean
> the means that you become aware (or not) of a piece of communication
> vying for your attention.
>
> What I really want is to have the streams classified as is relevant
> to me, where the alerting mechanism is tied to its *importance* to
> me, rather than the communication channel. That is, there is nothing
> inherent with voice that should give it preference to wake me from
> my sleep to hear an ad for the latest in garbage pail liners. I want
> something to make sense of all of these things and raises things to
> my conscious as makes sense for *me*.
>
> Give me that, Nigerian scams and penis enhancement all pretty much
> take care of themselves -- my classifier already knows that I could
> give a flying-f about those.

Completely agree, when describing feedback originating from individual
users.  Your provider might be able to make sense of what is unwanted in
your view by observing messages marked by you as "junk".  They might
even extend this service by unsubscribing from mailing-lists, and
tracking repeat violations of expressed desires.

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.

The general concept was to offer a conduit service as a means to protect
the provider's feedback address from abuse, while at the same time,
allowing the publication of both user and spam-trap metrics as a means
to generally inform their recipients and management.

-Doug