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

[J.D. Falk]

On 2007-05-24 15:45, Damon Sauer wrote:

>> Seems to me that only the sender can know for sure whether the message
>> was supposed to be transactional.
> 
> Yes, this is true, for the first round. In which we would research the
> issue via the ARF and let the ISP know that it was truely a
> transactional message and possibly provide further information to the
> ISP via a back-channel about which of our servers, IP range, domains,
> etc. are used in transactional mailings.

Can't you do that anyway?  A report type of "spam" doesn't mean you 
can't attempt to contact the report generator with questions/concerns.

>  1) Diminish or absolve the scoring for mislabeled spam reports.

Scoring and other spam filtering techniques are entirely up to the 
system that received the message.  Adding more report types won't change 
that.

ARF says absolutely nothing about what either the report generator or 
the report recipient is supposed to do with the report.  That's been one 
of the primary design goals all along, because we can't predict how the 
best practices will evolve.

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