Re: [Asrg] ARF traffic, was Spam button scenarios

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 09 February 2010 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
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 6B33D3A720C for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:37:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 rm3ovfM0JhGF for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EAB3A6C7F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:37:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:38:09 +0100 id 00000000005DC031.000000004B71AB91.00005463
Message-ID: <4B71AB90.40900@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:38:08 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20100208150513.49394.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <0BF553ABE600903AE55F0E89@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <4B718E2A.5070304@tana.it> <E90C946DC73DE1833D069DD2@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <E90C946DC73DE1833D069DD2@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] ARF traffic, was Spam button scenarios
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 18:37:03 -0000

On 09/Feb/10 18:38, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> Actually, I think I said we won't look at the message, but that's not
> right. We check the message headers to identify messages that were
> originally routed through the MSA. For abuse reports from our domain,
> though, they're not going to go out of our system and back again.

What about forwarding? Many sites have come to some sort of agreement 
with forwarders, e.g. in order to whitelist them from SPF checks. So 
if your user reports a forwarded message as spam, you may want to 
re-send the complaint to the forwarder, just like the Yahoo->Gmail 
case that has been exemplified earlier.

Now, suppose the report eventually reaches the original author. She 
may be the first human actually reading it, and realizes that the 
recipient hit TiS by mistake. Won't she protest? Eventually, the 
forwarder may send you back the ARF claiming that it has been your 
user's error and to please readjust their reputation.

What are the addresses involved?