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

[J.D. Falk]

On 2007-05-24 14:21, Damon Sauer wrote:

> I would like to continue to participate in this forum, but please, if
> you think I am off-base, or just plain loco, please direct those
> comments to me (even publicly) but not my employer whom is innocent of
> the slander here.

The only part of this conversation where I think you're acting loco is 
in thinking that I'm attacking you or your employer.

The use case that I thought you were describing is one that's been 
proposed before, so I wasn't exaggerating much -- but I'm glad to hear 
that you're asking for something entirely different.

> I am not asking that the ~user~ further classify the messages they are
> marking, but that the format allow for a section that could contain
> information saying that the ISP's internal systems have checked
> against their known transactional sending IPs, domains, whitelists,
> etc. and that the email in question either matched or did not match.

So, hopefully understanding a little better now, the use case you have 
in mind is:

1. [the sender] sends message to a user
2. the user reports it as spam to their ISP, via whatever mechanism
3. the ISP checks their own systems to determine if the message was 
likely to be transactional
4. the ISP reports it to [the sender], using ARF with a report type of 
"transactional"

Right?

Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message 
was supposed to be transactional.

-- 
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Mail