Re: [Asrg] Spam button scenarios

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 09 February 2010 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C917828C13B for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:11:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.864, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 4Qw59sJEBB8G for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:11:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (l053.n.taugh.com [64.57.183.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482D23A6F89 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9832 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2010 01:12:57 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2010 01:12:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=EzfXXuWKaLZwK2YJTSVTSqTYzLIGRes6pxZyiU13Gac=; b=CdvONE85oYDv6K2GTFmsk52RGsFw46OO9Z/kC+KeD/oHBIzKk3IK6t0P1u+1WCUHAin0ghcTgIAZ/LFuoQQLPWB91RW4yvcgKJhvn7rRfr8rTwTJEbkTLHJsFuiV5DDpKA+JXDiH45SEJ/fgPFYm9lqfigLYZNC6Tq7/TIWodOU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=EzfXXuWKaLZwK2YJTSVTSqTYzLIGRes6pxZyiU13Gac=; b=WyfGMo7VYuJ9rHXsAcGKeUuprkeDFuIQ0LoGt3W5H/Z81m24Afl0W0CN4OgPwm4Yy1PhZ9/fpeqVqo5WFeJZ/1SRJfkEz9cK7KKThBpswUZdx7TijmNfuvMa++2RNn/XXBUFKiNbJX1HsQh+Yp3aqZYkXMNY+wct5P/TpiBAkE8=
Date: 9 Feb 2010 01:12:56 -0000
Message-ID: <20100209011256.96218.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <80383760-91CA-4E8B-812B-477B738BD594@blighty.com>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] 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 01:11:56 -0000

>Who should get the report?
>> 
>>>  1) Gmail since that's who I picked it up from
>>>  2) Yahoo since that's where the spam was sent
>>>  3) Gmail but they should also forward the report to Yahoo
>> 
>> Very much Gmail.  If they want to chain it back to Yahoo as part of their FBL, they can.

>Even though the mail was never received by Gmail, just fetched by
>them from the IMAP server it was delivered to?

POP server, actually, but sure, it's advice to gmail on server tuning.

>If the reporting address is included in the AR header as added at the
>Yahoo MX, that would't be overwritten by Gmail, I don't think?

Depends whether they want to handle the reports, which they very well
might, e.g., mark their copy as spam, tune filters, then pass it along
to whoever they got it from.

It occurs to me that this could work reasonably well in a dumb
forwarder case.  If A forwards to B, and A supports spam reports but B
doesn't, A's header will still be there for the recipient.

R's,
John