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 14:57 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 2EA7F3A73C8 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:57:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, 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 v6a9eef2ghRy for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:57:52 -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 228043A73B2 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:57:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:60603) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXKXMZ-0005U5-R1; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:59:23 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:58:47 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>, Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <7C5B0CA93C5231334EF483EE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002091331.13013.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002082056.23128.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <4B707D33.1060608@bbiw.net> <201002091331.13013.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01nNWW3wU2BETdQupBCPsPSglSAk23Of/7EUA=; 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 14:57:53 -0000

--On 9 February 2010 13:31:12 +0000 Andrew Richards 
<ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> (we'd need a helpful volunteer already implementing TiS -
> probably in webmail - to generate data on how long it takes 'normal'
> users  to report TiS from initial message retrieval).
>

My guess is that won't help. There's not really a "message retrieval" stage 
in webmail. The client never downloads anything.

With IMAP, there's also not really a message retrieval stage. With POP, 
there is, but with either, the most efficient thing is to NOT retrieve spam 
messages. Often they can be deleted on the basis of a preview of headers 
and part of the body.

If you're applying a flag or annotation to the message, you still don't 
retrieve it. And, in POP you generally can't act on deleted messages. In 
IMAP you generally can't act on expunged messages, so I don't see that with 
either protocol there's necessarily a problem that you might be reporting a 
message that isn't on the server any more. That only occurs if you've done 
a blind retrieval of all your messages in POP.


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