Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Tue, 22 December 2009 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 AA85F28C0F3 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 iZ2tTyIhE6uZ for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [64.142.29.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 433B23A6A39 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from piolinux.mtcc.com (65-174-1-47.dsl.volcano.net [65.174.1.47]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBMHjQnD020197 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:28 -0800
Message-ID: <4B3105B5.6060701@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:25 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <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> <B14EC7430355853625D0D4EA@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <BBF2AC03-3C88-4557-9346-343347C196A9@guppylake.com> <240DB04672256506ED548857@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4B2A7E8D.8060104@nd.edu> <20091217200605.8E99E2421D@panix5.panix.com> <4B2B0E4B.3050509@dcrocker.net> <4B2E1E76.9000400@mines-paristech.fr> <A8792A43052B049E5A4851E5@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <20091221154631.2752024221@panix5.panix.com> <2AC70D28E4DDDF2D65492536@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2AC70D28E4DDDF2D65492536@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1249; t=1261503928; x=1262367928; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Asrg]=20Adding=20a=20spam=20button=20t o=20MUAs |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anti-Spam=20Research=20Group=20-=20IRTF=20<asrg@irtf .org> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=8VgJBQBvLyBNfYROXT6hXoaHOM8fgXYcdkD5d1Tv/fE=; b=QwlY6gBeIn+b7IR6EY36Ce0lZbkOkuSh4VEvXWfbf8QaIfpEmcg13Dtb87 FYUugL3OAzoKr5IHDBWT03JhhKozBR8lTghu/FB5QPeeuM9nNQIXThCUzXOz Xzep4pKjue2NxWyHEFIeo1pfqq8A0axXxT652OlQBtErmfJXHzWWk=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.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: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:45:46 -0000

Ian Eiloart wrote:
> That must depend a lot on the interface that they have. With the mail 
> client I have currently, there's no way to know how to report spam. If 
> the client had a "report as spam" button, then I'll bet the reporting 
> rate would go up.
>
> I get a much lower than 1% reporting rate, except when it comes to 
> spear phishing, where the rate is a bit better than 1%, even though 
> people have to find out how to do the reporting.
>
> Also, about 90% of the reports I get include minimal headers, so 
> they're not very useful.
Yet just about everybody has a junk button. Typically it feeds into some 
baysian stuff right now.
There's no reason that in the back end of the mua it couldn't send 
reports somehow, like, say,
an extension to imap or something like that. And then do what Nathaniel 
was saying: treat the
junk button as a "I don't want" button and figure out what that really 
means for the filters.

And it's not like this sort of thing is anything new anyway: lots of 
vendors have "report as
spam" widgets that get bolted onto the side of your favorite MUA. A 
little standardization
would be nice though as it would decouple that UI hassle from the actual 
job of filtering.

Mike