"transactional" report type (was Re: [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft)

[John Marlin]

Is there any hope that users and ISPs would be willing to allow (or
require) the user to break out the spam designation further. I recall
that GoodMail was (is?) doing something like this, where the user
flagging an unwanted message would then be prompted to indicate whether
this message is: A) truly spam from an unrelated party, B) an unwanted
message from a company that I still otherwise do business with, C)
something that I signed up for but no longer wish to receive, and some
other categories that I can't seem to dredge up from my biological
memory stick.

Perhaps this doesn't really fit in this ARF discussion, but it seems
like this could be a really useful distinction to be able to feed back
through the system. Of course, in an ideal world, users would always
choose the "Unsubscribe" link in the email, but in practice we know that
users routinely hit the SPAM button instead, even when those users are
our clients, have signed up for the messages in the first place, and
often have happily been receiving these messages for months or years.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: abuse-feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org 
> [mailto:abuse-feedback-report-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf 
> Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 14:10 2PM
> To: ARF mailing list
> Subject: "transactional" report type (was Re: 
> [taugh.com-johnl] Re:[feedback-report] New version of the ARF draft)
> 
> On 2007-05-24 11:17, Damon Sauer wrote:
> 
> > Everyday I am inundated with people marking their credit 
> card receipts 
> > and shipping confirmations as spam. Since I am sending all my 
> > transactional from a particular domain, I suppose it is 
> possible to do 
> > something with it.While the wording "This is not spam because it is 
> > transactional" would need some smithing it would go a long way in 
> > educating the user that would otherwise, for whatever 
> reason, mark it 
> > as spam and thereby reducing the amount of noise in the actual 
> > reporting.
> 
> If I'm understanding this correctly, your use case is:
> 
> 1. Macy's sends (what they consider to be) a transactional 
> message to a user 2. the user reports it as spam to their 
> ISP, via whatever mechanism 3. the ISP reports it to Macy's, 
> using ARF with a report type of "spam" 
> (which really just means "this user complained") 4. now 
> Macy's replies somehow to the ISP, using ARF with a report 
> type of "transactional" (which really means "the user had no 
> right to complain, tell them to suck it up") 5. Macy's 
> assumes that the ISP will smack their user for mis-reporting 
> the message as spam
> 
> Correct?
> 
> Has any ISP (or other likely report generator) expressed any 
> interest in smacking their users?  Have any users expressed 
> any interest in being smacked?
> 
> --
> J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
> Yahoo! Mail
> _______________________________________________
> abuse-feedback-report mailing list
> abuse-feedback-report at mipassoc.org
> http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report
>