Re: [Asrg] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Tue, 09 February 2010 15:17 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 84D2A3A720F for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:17:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 1EnVdTp+STxA for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk (sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.88]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF7F3A709A for <asrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:17:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.135.133]:61796) by sivits.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KXKYK4-000GO3-Q3 for asrg@irtf.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:19:16 +0000
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:18:40 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <3CF7A009A89B903D8790E05C@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201002091508.30014.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <201002091331.13013.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> <7C5B0CA93C5231334EF483EE@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk> <201002091508.30014.ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01UoLV0rvjQzeT7yk0vqjF90hFuPr2LLWox+0=; 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] who has the message (was Re: Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3))
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, 09 Feb 2010 15:17:35 -0000

--On 9 February 2010 15:08:29 +0000 Andrew Richards 
<ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tuesday 09 February 2010 14:58:47 Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> --On 9 February 2010 13:31:12 +0000 Andrew Richards
>>
>> <ar-asrg@acrconsulting.co.uk> wrote:
>> > (we'd need a helpful volunteer already implementing TiS -
>> > probably in webmail - to generate data on how long it takes 'normal'
>> > users  to report TiS from initial message retrieval).
>>
>> My guess is that won't help. There's not really a "message retrieval"
>>  stage in webmail. The client never downloads anything.
>
> A better way of expressing myself would be "...how long it takes 'normal'
> users to report TiS for a message from its first presentation to the
> user"  which would cover the user deleting messages purely based on the
> message  preview you mention below.
>

Yes. I guess my point is that information about user behaviour in a webmail 
client isn't relevant to the behaviour of users with a POP client.

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