Re: [Asrg] Summary of junk button discussion

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 02 March 2010 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
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 BF4EA3A8405 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:50:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.039, 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 pbuDtt87OCiR for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7EF3A68C7 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:58390) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KYNI7C-000MEA-5U for asrg@irtf.org; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:52:24 +0000
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:49:50 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <0B626948F6F95B2FF6E5EEF9@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20100301192508.57924.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20100301192508.57924.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:017JEVMlXyg5ct/mmUWLdfBoilUgk2jE+3Yfw=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
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] Summary of junk button discussion
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: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:50:21 -0000

--On 1 March 2010 19:25:08 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> After years of experience with webmail junk buttons, the only messages
> they've found useful are "junk" on regular messages and "not junk" on
> stuff in the junk folder.  I don't see why MUA users would be any
> different.  If you want to encode stuff in the ARF report to say whether
> the opinion is from a human or from software, you can, although it is
> again not clear how useful that would be.

To me, as an administrator, I'd give more weight to a human opinion. In 
part, that's because the human is less likely to actually see a message 
that the client filter had spotted. It's the hard to spot email that I want 
to inspect.

I still want to know why Twitter's experience - which distinguishes between 
"block" and "report" isn't useful in this context. They seem like clear 
distinctions to me, and they're verbs, not adjectives, so they make 
explicit the resultant action. For privacy reasons, I think it's important 
that people are aware that a report is being made.

Now I think of it, "junk" is a verb, too, so its use in a button could 
easily be misinterpreted as equivalent to "trash" - less strong than either 
"block" or "report".

-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/