Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Thu, 28 January 2010 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 D5F663A6914 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 EAKyT0NsYBbn for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [64.142.29.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FC33A683F for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (fugu.mtcc.com [64.142.29.208]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o0SJEZQv009587 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <asrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4B61E21B.7010509@mtcc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:35 -0800
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
References: <20100128173112.85215.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <4B61CC2F.404@mtcc.com> <4B61DBF8.60006@mail-abuse.org> <387E2502-61E5-4811-B4EB-36AE47ADC648@blighty.com>
In-Reply-To: <387E2502-61E5-4811-B4EB-36AE47ADC648@blighty.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2329; t=1264706076; x=1265570076; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Asrg]=20Adding=20a=20spam=20button=20t o=20MUAs |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anti-Spam=20Research=20Group=20-=20IRTF=20<asrg@irtf .org> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=mISd8AFE3JoSZKZbiDCoYj5m83ze74hzRzIir0YpSGE=; b=B+yKO7pvWu8lvlTUsadzd+wjUzXag/J//Cpf/H6unFHxtIfrFHuv0aeG3g 6iXYsWxrBNMeM6nhvKeYneFEijJh92dA1+KwGaF8ZcYC9ZZEamLp5l6cEaS5 V4VH222TsmIaAVMnyXaEk3/Iajs6yKVyzYmLRUqCDKq1PEZJ1U8UY=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
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, 28 Jan 2010 19:14:20 -0000

On 01/28/2010 11:03 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/10 9:41 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2010 09:31 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>> Even worse, users will learn what the button means by the effect (they
>>>>> think) they obtain by hitting it, which may vary.
>>>> Web mail has had spam buttons for years, and the users seem to have
>>>> figured out how to use them.  Can you explain exactly how the issues
>>>> with a spam button in a MUA would be different?
>>> The entire thing strikes me as rather elitist: like only Certified Spamologists(tm)
>>> can determine for you what you don't want to receive.
>> The issue whether a source issued spam or an email someone did not want is significantly different.  This is a greater concern for senders, and less so for individual recipients.  When this information is used to establish spam reputations used for blocking, then not describing auto-responses in Chinese as spam would be important.   In general, it would be safer to describe email marked by end users clicking "This is..." buttons, as only determining the message as unwanted for undetermined reasons, where it being spam is one possibility.  As such, describing the end-user button and the information obtain as identifying  the email as "junk" rather than as "spam" is likely to be more accurate from both the sender's and the law's perspective.
>
> Most of the people I see arguing that the "this is spam" button isn't
> a good user interface for users to provide their thoughts are spammers
> or grey area bulk mailers.
>
> There's a smattering of operationally inexperienced anti-spam nuts,
> and dilettantes who have nothing more productive to do than argue about the
> wording of AOLs user interface and the colour the AOL bikeshed should be
> painted, but it's mostly spammers and dirty bulk mailers.
>
> Most everyone else involved seems reasonably satisfied with it, which
> suggests that the overall approach is probably quite effective. Even the
> grey area bulk mailers seem fairly happy with the data they get, even while
> the guys they hire to push their agendas are arguing about TiS semantics
> in public.

I'm trying to figure out whether your post is responsive to my point or not.

I can't.

Mike