Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <> Wed, 27 January 2010 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D2A3A680E for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:58:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.443
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HzZXrMoE9mD2 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACE43A67A6 for <>; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:58:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:61209) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <>) id KWWUYC-0001QD-MT for; Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:59:01 +0000
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:59:00 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01OyaIjKSH9vF8k9zup0yum/v/oZ6p5p5MsJE=;
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Adding a spam button to MUAs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:58:55 -0000

--On 27 January 2010 07:47:27 -0500 Rich Kulawiec <> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:06:21PM -0500, Chris Lewis wrote:
>> I explained that to RSK about a year ago.  Guess he forgot.
> No, but I do think you're right *and* I'm right.
> You're right about the statistics.
> I'm right about end-users: there is no way that any end-user should
> ever be permitted to classify anything as spam/not-spam. [1]  They clearly
> haven't got the slightest idea how to tell the difference...because
> if they DID, the scope of the problem we face would be much smaller.
> (It would still be non-zero: it's clear that many spammers don't care
> whether users receive, read, save, or respond to spam.)

I'm an end user, as is everyone on this list, and I resent that remark.

> ---Rsk
> [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.

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

Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see