Re: [Asrg] Spam button scenarios

Bill Weinman <wew@bearnet.com> Mon, 08 February 2010 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wew@bearnet.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 F09563A7489 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:57:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 5K1JL2VRC6Hs for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp125.iad.emailsrvr.com (smtp125.iad.emailsrvr.com [207.97.245.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 355183A7446 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4F4E344C027 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:59:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: by relay2.r2.iad.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: wew-AT-bearnet.com) with ESMTPSA id 0C8AB44C00F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:58:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B706D03.6050605@bearnet.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:58:59 -0700
From: Bill Weinman <wew@bearnet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002080111310.16135@simone.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002080111310.16135@simone.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:58 -0000

On 2010-02-07 11:28 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> C) I have a Gmail account and a Yahoo account. The Gmail account is set
> up to fetch my Yahoo mail so I can see it all in one place. I use
> Gmail's IMAP server to read my mail. (I really do this, by the way.) I
> hit the spam button. 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

One way to look at this is: Which choice benefits the user most?

Since the Yahoo mail is being forwarded to Gmail, I would think it would 
be more valuable to have Gmail doing the spam filtering. Yahoo probably 
cares that they have the opportunity to train their spam filters, but 
from the user's perspective I think Gmail is the one that matters in 
this scenario.

--B