Re: [Rucus] Operator-assisted SPIT filtering (was Re: SPIT from operator)

[Pars Mutaf <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM, David Schwartz<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> What is the advantage of operator marking and forwarding the message,
>> over the cell phone marking the message
>> and storing marked as SPIT?
>
> The operator has much more information to base a decision on (including input he gets from the endpoint) than the endpoint has.
> The operator can "share" information better with other users (including ones who did not actually mark the particular caller) as well. > Email systems have been doing this for years where a spam indication by one of its members is propagated to others.

Is there any reference for this? (if not too difficult to find any).
In my view, there may exist messages marked as spam by one user, that
may not be considered as spam by other users.
I mean, users may have different spam criteria.

In any case I would suggest that these points be clarified. They don't
seem obvious to me.

Thanks,

pars

>
>> Perhaps the operator would have more information about SPITers and can
>> perform better filtering on behalf of users? (I'm not sure about
>> that). This could be clarified?
>
> My point is, that regardless of the actual SPAM indication harvesting technique (e.g. the receiving user "blocked" the call), without the ability to warn others as well the information is of limited value - hence my reference to the Wing draft.
>
>> Or it is an energy conservation issue?
>
> :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> pars
>
>