Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Wed, 27 January 2010 15:43 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 CF5DC3A6803 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:43:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.927
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.364, 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 USQMvLzbXH3p for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (www.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961123A6837 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:43:52 -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; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:44:05 +0100 id 00000000005DC038.000000004B605F45.00003FE8
Message-ID: <4B605F44.6080506@tana.it>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:44:04 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: asrg@irtf.org
References: <20091216145533.68982.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B2A650D.5020800@nortel.com> <20100127124727.GA17990@gsp.org> <A8CB4B515281A7AD9E811574@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <A8CB4B515281A7AD9E811574@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:43:56 -0000

On 27/Jan/10 15:59, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> --On 27 January 2010 07:47:27 -0500 Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
>> [1] It might not be unreasonable to permit them the privilege of flagging
>> something for review by someone equipped with appropriate expertise,
>> although that has privacy implications that I'm not entirely comfortable
>> with.
>
> Well, flagging is all we're talking about. The review mechanism could be
> at least partially automated. You're right to flag privacy as an issue,
> but it's already an issue given that there are already widely deployed
> mechanisms for end users to flag mail as junk.

TIS buttons should clearly convey this point: the message being 
flagged and _disclosed_ is perceived as abusive and unwanted, the 
sender is unknown to the recipient/reporter, and he or she delegates 
the community at large to take whatever action they may deem 
appropriate. No privacy issues beyond that point, except for possibly 
redacting the reporter's address.

> What this thread is about is the creation of standards to support those
> implementations, if I remember well.

Yes, but considerations on how to further route and munch those 
complaints are also interesting.