[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft

[John R Levine]

>>   * miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in
>>     connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect
>>   * not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as
>>     spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam

> How about adding one more:
> I know a big one for me is * transactional. Where a user is part of a
> group or system that sends messages regarding status or account
> changes, billing, receipts, etc.
> I think this would cover a great deal of the *not-spam reports and
> would help catagorize them better.

While we presumably all agree that we generally want to treat 
transactional mail better than most other mail from large senders*, I 
don't think this is a good way to do it.  We know that users won't 
distinguish between spam and opt-out, they don't even understand the 
difference between opt-out and opt-out-list, they just want whatever it is 
to stop.  Similarly, people seem somewhat willing to press a not-spam 
button, but it seems equally implausible that they will tell us why it's 
not spam.

If certification a la VBR gets any traction, a lot of mail will have 
assertions in a header about whether a message is a transaction, something 
that senders have plenty of incentive to add, so if you want to treat them 
more favorably, there's your tag.

I'm not opposed to adding subcategories at some point in the future, but 
I'd rather experiment first, add to the spec later.

Incidentally, if you're wondering why I think "miscategorized" is OK, it's 
because it's orthogonal to spam/not-spam.  It's entirely possible that I 
would get mail from a bank, and I would see that it's not a transaction, 
but it's not spam, either.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

* - note all the hedging and qualification