IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] Report-as-Spam header

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 10 June 2012 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD5621F8525 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f7UuDX0qc4OG for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2EE21F850B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5AJfnc4007529 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1339357313; i=@resistor.net; bh=/sLzsAdDOidojZeoy0ct/dy8vzsnI/GqNOGSs/WFYxc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=lo1r7w3dTjyXhiGdi6ySZdDuQkHd8zHfFRQZ5LTP30pCfvX+GeV8Gl/iLj40Rpr7j aGVGRp59ZYnrSxVxlZtN1DZVoElM9vxKdn+8AOWY3bbNXsnHY0TdjwoQIDJchtkyUV jP6LmHvowUYYKr3TLEbw5dTqmqCPUg0mBSinnel8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1339357313; i=@resistor.net; bh=/sLzsAdDOidojZeoy0ct/dy8vzsnI/GqNOGSs/WFYxc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=yY+KLR7WyIfZBJAAnxx1Pbg+uyp0NqDllY/2sWJ8wpgCcFYqtlBJsjLwkBgqu18S+ DJJXFeCaSRcS7SsF8SkMcXA67bSpECN9AmP9L2DJQJgTG/MZuaB3djuSdh79FtkCRG fNKM5N/F4JbfuQ+Ohhi7FGVpOwMEJ9x8T6hhHIfc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120610123350.0939fc28@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:41:23 -0700
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD4CAA4.5050006@swiftspirit.co.za>
References: <4FD4CAA4.5050006@swiftspirit.co.za>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Report-as-Spam header
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:41:57 -0000

Hi Brendan,
At 09:26 10-06-2012, Brendan Hide wrote:
>Has a spam reporting header been considered, similar to the 
>List-Unsubscribe header in RFC2369? Already many Bulk Mail service 
>providers provide readable headers directing recipients where to 
>send spam complaints. I don't think this is standardised in any way however.

[snip]

>The notion of being able to report back to the responsible ISP/mail 
>server directly without going through a long process is attractive. 
>In some environments a relay cluster with outbound anti-spam 
>scanning could even report high-spam-scoring mails with little to no 
>human intervention.

Have you considered using ARF (RFC 5965)?  Please also see some of 
the work from the IETF MARF working group.

Regards,
-sm

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email