Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 03:38 UTC

Return-Path: <steve@blighty.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 3295E3A67FE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:38:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 A6Cu8t05FLg5 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (fruitbat.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.135]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772D43A6359 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from platter.wordtothewise.com (184.wordtothewise.com [208.187.80.184]) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D094F816D for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
From: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <D70BFF28-6C34-4F1F-AF7F-3D18F6A05EA2@blighty.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:37:39 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C92A29E1-3659-4EB9-888B-F0667381D5AE@blighty.com>
References: <20091209202807.81190.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <20091209235730.7958324216@panix5.panix.com> <A1AF1DFB-40D4-4E7D-AA3C-3F865CBF14C6@blighty.com> <20091210023913.F322224218@panix5.panix.com> <D70BFF28-6C34-4F1F-AF7F-3D18F6A05EA2@blighty.com>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
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, 10 Dec 2009 03:38:08 -0000

On Dec 9, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:

> 
> On Dec 9, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Seth wrote:
> 
>> Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That's beside the point, though. What is the disadvantage of sending
>>> reports to spammers?
>> 
>> 2. It doesn't go to the site where it would do some good.
> 
> Nor does it go anywhere where it would do any harm.
> 
> This is only in the case where the MX operator (and the forwarder or mailing list manager or anyone else along the delivery path) is not providing any sort of FBL, nor gathering TiS data, at least not by using this approach, so nobody else will be doing anything with the data.

Uh, to expand on that. I'm seeing the model in this case is that the spammer pretends to be a forwarder, so a report that might otherwise go to a forwarder would go to the spammer instead.

If the mail delivery path is "spammer -> forwarder -> isp -> recipient" then the only useful places to report it are the ISP, the forwarder and (potentially) the spammer. If, instead, it's "spammer-pretending-to-be-a-forwarder -> isp -> recipient" then the only useful place to send it is the ISP, but sending it to the spammer as well has no real cost.

I might have missed a suggestion to not send it to the ISP, only to the apparent forwarder, when there was something that looked like a forwarder - if so, don't do that. :)

Cheers,
  Steve